Us - Dot - Bureau of Transportation Statistics - Us - Dot - Bureau of Transportation Statistics - Bicycle and Pedestrian Data - Sources, Needs, and Gaps - Entire

All material contained in this report is in the
public domain and may be used and reprint- To obtain copies of this report and
ed without special permission; citation as to
other BTS products, go to the online
source is required.
Product Catalog at:
This document is disseminated under the www.bts.gov
sponsorship of the Bureau of Transportation
Statistics, U.S. Department of Transportation You may also mail orders to:
in the interest of information exchange. The Product Orders
U.S. government assumes no liability for its Bureau of Transportation Statistics
contents or use thereof. U.S. Department of Transportation
400 7th Street SW, Room 3430
Washington, DC 20590
Recommended citation phone 202-366-DATA
U.S. Department of Transportation fax 202-366-3640
Bureau of Transportation Statistics email orders@bts.gov
Bicycle and Pedestrian Data:
Sources, Needs, & Gaps To obtain transportation-related
BTS00-02 statistical information, call
Washington, DC: 2000 800-853-1351.
ii
Acknowledgments
U.S. Department of Transportation Report prepared for BTS by:

Rodney E. Slater William Schwartz and
Secretary Christopher Porter
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Mortimer L. Downey
Deputy Secretary
BTS Project Manager

Bureau of Transportation Statistics David Mednick
Ashish K. Sen
Director
Rick Kowalewski Contributors

Deputy Director Wendell Fletcher
William Mallett
Rolf R. Schmitt Joanne Sedor
Associate Director for
Transportation Studies
Susan J. Lapham
BTS Publications Staff
Associate Director for Marsha Fenn
Statistical Programs and Services Chip Moore
Martha Courtney
BTS Mission and Vision

Our mission: To lead in developing transporta-
Cover Design
tion data and information of high quality and Dan Halberstein
to advance their effective use in both public and TASC Graphics
private transportation decisionmaking. USDOT
Our vision for the future: Data and information

of high quality will support every significant
transportation policy decision, thus advancing
the quality of life and the economic well-being
of all Americans.
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................1
1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................7
Study Approach..........................................................................................................8
Why Collect Bicycle and Pedestrian Data? ................................................................8
2 EXISTING DATA SOURCES ......................................................................11

Usage, Trip, and User Characteristics ......................................................................14
Preferences, Needs, and Attitudes ............................................................................27
Facilities....................................................................................................................29
Crashes and Safety ..................................................................................................33
Expenditures and Capital Stocks ............................................................................38
Secondary Data ........................................................................................................39
References ................................................................................................................40
Boxes
2-1 U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission Study ..........................................25
2-2 Statewide Bicycle Suitability Criteria ................................................................32
Table
2-1 Existing Sources of Bicycle and Pedestrian Data..............................................15
3 DATA NEEDS ........................................................................................43

Summary of Data Needs and Priorities....................................................................43
Facilities....................................................................................................................48
Secondary Data ........................................................................................................49
References ................................................................................................................50
Table
3-1 Assessment of Data Priorities ..........................................................................45
4 OPTIONS FOR ADDRESSING DATA NEEDS ..........................................51

General Recommendations ......................................................................................51
Facilities....................................................................................................................56
iv
Secondary Data ........................................................................................................59
References ................................................................................................................60
Box
4-1 Portland, Oregon, Pedestrian Potential and Deficiency Indices ......................56
APPENDICES
A Results of Outreach Effort ..........................................................................61

Methodology ............................................................................................................61
Responses ................................................................................................................62
Existing Data............................................................................................................63
Data Needs ..............................................................................................................64
Options for Addressing Data Needs ........................................................................70
Tables
A-1 Email Listservs Contacted................................................................................62
A-2 Survey Responses by Type of Respondent ......................................................64
A-3 Types of Existing Data Cited in Survey ..........................................................65
A-4 Sources of Existing Data Cited in Survey ........................................................65
A-5 Outreach Effort: Summary of Identified Data Needs ......................................66
Figures
A-1 Responses by Scope of Activity........................................................................63
A-2 Survey Responses by Type of Organization ....................................................63
B Other Recent Assessments of Data Needs ..................................................75

Irvine Conference ....................................................................................................75
Bureau of Transportation Statistics Assessment ......................................................76
Bicycle and Pedestrian Demand Forecasting Guidebook ........................................76
References ..........................................................................................................77
v
Executive Summary
T he potential of pedestrian and bicycle travel to provide mobility,

reduce congestion, improve environmental quality, and promote
public health has received increasing attention in recent years.
Research, planning, and policymaking efforts to improve conditions
for pedestrian and bicycle travel require data such as travel and facil-
ity characteristics, crash and safety information, and user preferences.
However, deficiencies and limitations in existing sources for these
data often hamper these efforts.
As an initial step towards enhancing bicycle and pedestrian data qual-

ity and filling data gaps, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS)
has undertaken this assessment of bicycle and pedestrian data needs.
The study has the following objectives:
● First, to provide an inventory of existing sources of bicycle and

pedestrian-related data, including the extent, quality, and limita-
tions of these sources;
● Second, to identify and prioritize areas in which additional or

improved data are needed; and
● Third, to identify and recommend opportunities for improving the

quality of bicycle and pedestrian data.
1
2 Bicycle and Pedestrian Data
This review of existing data and data needs was based on outreach to user
groups that included planners, advocates, and researchers at federal, state,
and local government agencies, universities, and nonprofit organizations.
Published materials and information from other recent assessments of trans-
portation data needs were also reviewed. Primary data sources were classi-
fied by four types: 1) usage, trip, and user characteristics; 2) user preferences;
3) facilities; and 4) crash and safety data. Key types of secondary data (data
that are based on analysis of primary data) were also identified, including
research-study results and manuals of practice.
Based on this review, priorities for data needs were identified based on the
following criteria:
● Importance of the data for its intended application(s) and audience(s);
● Quality of existing data; and
● Usefulness of the data for a range of applications (facility design, trend

analysis, etc.), audiences (researchers, planners, policymakers, etc.), and
geographic scales (local, state, national).
The identified priorities are shown in table 1.
The study also identified a number of opportunities for improving the qual-
ity of bicycle and pedestrian data. Emerging information technology, includ-
ing intelligent transportation systems (ITS) for data collection as well as
information management tools such as geographic information systems
(GIS), have the potential to make data collection, management, and analysis
cheaper and easier. Greater coordination of efforts, however, is required to
fully exploit the potential of these technologies to improve pedestrian and
bicycle data. Also, certain types of data, such as numbers of trips by facility
and user type, are potentially useful to a wide range of user groups; but coor-
dination among these groups is required to establish standardized, mutually
beneficial data collection procedures.
Some of the key recommendations emerging from this study are identified
below. These are areas in which federal involvement—through coordination
of efforts, provision of technical assistance, or sponsorship of research and
development activities—could greatly assist in benefiting a broad range of
user groups.
Executive Summary 3
Table 1
Assessment of Data Priorities
Quality of Priority for
Type of data and description existing data better data
Usage, trip, and user characteristics

Number of bicyclists and pedestrians
by facility or geographic area Poor High
User and trip characteristics by
geographic area or facility Fair Medium/high
User preferences
Relative preferences for facility
design characteristics and other
supporting factors Fair Medium
Facilities data
Characteristics relating to quality
for bicycle or pedestrian travel Fair Medium
Crash and safety data

Specific bicycle- and pedestrian-relevant
crash variables Fair Medium/high
Data regarding crashes that do
not involve a motor vehicle Poor Medium
Secondary data
Safety and demand impacts of
design features Fair High
Safety and demand impacts of
policies, programs Fair Medium
General/Cross-Cutting Recommendations:
● Bring together the full range of users of bicycle and pedestrian data to dis-
cuss how specific data collection efforts could benefit the broadest num-
ber of users.
● Include in this discussion those who collect all types of transportation

data; for example, representatives of the U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT), state DOTs, metropolitan planning organizations,
and city and county transportation agencies.
● Opportunities for improving bicycle and pedestrian data should be

viewed in conjunction with current opportunities and constraints for
improving related types of general transportation data.
Recommendations on Usage, Trip, and User Characteristics:
● Evaluate and promote new bicycle- and pedestrian-counting technologies

(i.e., video imaging, infrared sensors) by synthesizing the results of current
pilot-testing efforts, sponsoring additional pilot tests and methodological
development, and conducting outreach efforts to disseminate successful
technologies.
● Develop a “handbook” or manual on basic pedestrian and bicycle char-

acteristics such as trip-length distributions and typical socioeconomic and
demographic characteristics.
● Develop and widely disseminate sampling and other methodologies for

conducting pedestrian and bicycle counts and travel surveys.
● Continue to develop and promote methodological improvements to

household travel surveys, such as metropolitan surveys, the Nationwide
Personal Transportation Survey (NPTS), and other federally sponsored
surveys, to better capture short walk trips, access to transit trips, chil-
dren’s trips, and purely recreational walk and bicycle trips.
Recommendations on Preferences, Needs, and Attitudes:
● Synthesize and disseminate existing knowledge on preferences, needs, and

attitudes, and update this information on a regular basis.
● Develop survey questions regarding conditions and preferences for bicy-

cling and walking that could be added to existing metropolitan household
travel surveys, the NPTS, or other surveys.
● Develop surveys and sampling methodologies that can be applied locally

across the nation.
Recommendations on Facilities:
● Assist in standardizing data formats and definitions of bicycle and pedes-

trian facilities where appropriate, in order to facilitate use in other appli-
cations (crash analysis, network models, etc.) and to promote data
comparability among jurisdictions and geographic areas.
● Facilitate discussions among various data user groups to identify key net-
work characteristics relevant to bicycle and pedestrian planning and
design, and provide guidance to state and local agencies responsible for
collecting and maintaining transportation data.
Executive Summary 5
● Investigate new technologies for data collection, such as aerial photogra-

phy and satellite imagery, and disseminate successful applications.
Recommendations on Crashes and Safety:
● Build consensus on characteristics that are most important to record in

reporting of crashes involving bicyclists and pedestrians; include these
characteristics in developing standards for computer-based reporting sys-
tems.
● Investigate opportunities provided by GIS and global positioning systems

(GPS) for identifying and documenting the precise location of crashes;
investigate any potential implications of these technologies for how crash
and facilities data should be reported and managed.
● Investigate methods to achieve more thorough reporting of injury crashes

as well as reporting of nonmotor vehicle crashes and incidents.
● Investigate the potential of utilizing existing linked crash and medical

record databases for pedestrian and bicycle crash research.
Recommendations on Secondary Data:
● Continue to improve the availability of existing research by summarizing

existing studies and by making resources available via the Internet.
● Prioritize, fund, and promote research to fill in key gaps in knowledge

related to bicycle and pedestrian travel.
Introduction
CHAPTER
1
T he importance of pedestrian and bicycle travel has received
increasing attention in recent years as planners and policymakers
recognize the benefits to communities, public health, economic devel-
opment, and the environment of improving nonmotorized travel
options. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-
21), passed by Congress in 1998, requires the consideration of bicy-
cle and pedestrian needs in transportation planning and increases
funding opportunities for bicycle and pedestrian projects. TEA-21
also directs the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) to develop
data on bicycles and pedestrians.
Efforts to plan for bicycle and pedestrian travel are frequently ham-
pered, however, by deficiencies in data on travel characteristics, facilities,
safety, and user preferences. As a step toward improving the quality of
bicycle and pedestrian data, BTS has undertaken this assessment of bicy-
cle and pedestrian data needs. The study has the following objectives:
● First, to provide an inventory of existing sources of bicycle and
pedestrian-related data, including the extent, quality, and limita-
tions of these sources;
● Second, to identify and prioritize areas in which additional or
improved data are needed; and
● Third, to identify and recommend opportunities for improving the
quality of bicycle and pedestrian data.
7
STUDY APPROACH
The following methods were used to identify existing sources of bicycle and
pedestrian data, data needs and priorities, and opportunities for improving data
collection:
● Interviews and discussions with key people involved with pedestrian
and/or bicycle issues at a national level;
● An email questionnaire sent to numerous individuals and groups, includ-
ing national, state, and local pedestrian and bicycle planners, advocates,
and researchers;
● Various written sources of information, both published and unpublished;
● Experience gained from previous pedestrian and bicycle projects under-
taken by the authors of the report.
Appendix A provides an overview of the email survey methodology and results.
Appendix B contains a brief review of other recent assessments of data needs.
WHY COLLECT BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN DATA?
A perspective on the various uses of bicycle and pedestrian data is helpful in

assessing needs and opportunities. Bicycle and pedestrian data are commonly
applied to at least three general uses:
● Research studies and recommended practices;
● Planning and design of facilities, project selection decisions, policies, and
programs; and
● Analysis of conditions and trends to inform policymaking.
Consideration of the various uses of data can help shape data collection pro-
grams to benefit the greatest number of users. In many cases, programs to col-
lect and manage data can be designed to benefit a broad range of users. In other
cases, research and planning studies will require data collection efforts geared
toward the specific needs of the study. Even in cases where data needs are spe-
cific to the study context, however, improvements in data collection technolo-
gies and methods are still of general value. Some requirements and needs for the
various uses of data are discussed in more detail below.
Research
Research studies may rely wholly or in part on data collected specifically for the
study being conducted. National or local data sources may also be utilized,
Introduction 9
depending on the scope of the study and the quality of available sources. Bicycle
and pedestrian research studies fall into at least three major categories:
● Studies on basic operational characteristics (e.g., bicyclist riding speeds,
shared-path “level-of-service” characteristics, or pedestrian gap accept-
ance at intersections). These studies usually rely on specific data-collec-
tion efforts.
● Studies of factors influencing crashes and safety. These studies rely on at
least two types of data: 1) crash characteristics, describing the people and
vehicles involved, location, environmental conditions, contributing fac-
tors, injury outcomes, etc.; and 2) usage data, including flows by location,
user characteristics, etc., from which measures of exposure and therefore
risk can be derived.
● User preference and demand studies, which analyze the effects of facility
design and other policies on user preferences and demand (usage). These
studies frequently rely on surveys of existing and potential pedestrians
and bicyclists. Quantitative models of behavior can also be used to devel-
op information on user preferences. These models may be based either on
“stated preference” survey data, in which people are asked to make choic-
es among various alternatives, or on “revealed preference” data, i.e.,
observations of people’s actual behavior from travel surveys and counts.
These studies may also utilize trend data on usage, which is analyzed to
determine the impacts of facility or policy changes.
● As researchers synthesize and analyze raw data from research studies, the
results yield secondary data, such as evidence on the impacts of facility
design and other policies on safety, user satisfaction, demand, medical
costs, and other factors. The results may be in the form of direct state-
ments of impact, or they may take the form of coefficients, factors, etc.
that can be used in modeling the joint impacts of multiple actions.
Research results are also used to develop manuals of practice. These secondary
forms of data include design manuals, policies, and programs that, based on the
results of a variety of research studies as well as other factors, can be defined as
“recommended practices.”
Planning and Design
Planning and design for pedestrian and bicycle travel involves at least the fol-
lowing aspects:
● The siting and design of facilities for travel (e.g., roads, signals, paths, and
lanes);
● Development and implementation of operational policies (e.g., traffic

rules and enforcement);
● Provision of other incentives (e.g., bicycle parking, shower and locker
facilities for bicyclists) or disincentives (e.g., tolls and parking pricing) to
travel by various modes;
● Education and outreach efforts (e.g., to provide information and training
and to influence attitudes and beliefs).
Planning is supported by primary data collected locally, such as user and trip
characteristics, traffic counts, facility characteristics, and crash data. Primary
data can help identify the specific treatments that should be applied locally,
where they should be applied, and what the specific benefits or impacts are like-
ly to be. Uses of primary, locally collected data in planning often include the fol-
lowing:
● Identifying and addressing deficiencies: Data on crashes (or incidents) and
facility characteristics are used to identify trouble spots in bicycle or
pedestrian travel networks and to identify solutions that address these
deficiencies.
● Forecasting demand: Data on facilities, counts, travel patterns, and mar-
ket and user characteristics are used in conjunction with modeling tech-
niques to forecast travel patterns and demand under assumed future
conditions. Travel forecasts can be used for planning the location of
routes to create a travel network, developing lists of projects for funding,
and providing background for policy decisions.
● Prioritizing projects: Counts and/or demand forecasts are used in con-
junction with known deficiencies to identify and prioritize improvements.
● Designing education and outreach programs: Data on crash characteris-
tics and causes as well as counts or survey data (e.g., bicyclists against
traffic flow) can assist in designing education and outreach programs for
pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists to promote safe travel practices.
Origin-destination data can help identify current populations of bicyclists
and pedestrians in order to target programs. Data on attitudes and beliefs
can be used to design programs to promote walking and bicycling and to
help plan and design facilities.
Planning is also supported in part by secondary data, such as research-study
results and recommended practices as discussed above. Secondary data can
assist in developing appropriate network plans, design treatments, operational
policies, supporting policies, and outreach programs.
Introduction 11
Policymaking
Information on existing conditions and trends in usage, crash rates, and facili-
ties can provide important background for setting policy and for making fund-
ing and programmatic decisions. These data can help identify whether existing
policies and programs are successful and whether additional or revised policies
and programs are needed. For example, data indicating that walkway quality is
generally poor and declining might lead to the establishment of improvement
programs or funds, or the establishment of a committee to provide input into
improvements. Data showing increasing crash rates may indicate the need for
additional funding for efforts to improve roadway safety.
Data on forecast usage can also be important for policymaking. Demand fore-
casts can be used to predict potential increases in pedestrian and bicycle travel
resulting from various types of improvements. These forecasts can help indicate
the potential benefits and impacts of various policy and programmatic deci-
sions.
The remainder of this document assesses the state of existing data, priorities for
data needs, and opportunities for improving data collection.
Existing Data Sources
CHAPTER
2
T he following sections provide an overview of existing U.S. sources
of pedestrian- and bicycle-related data, including characteristics,
uses, limitations, and potential enhancements of each source. While
the focus is mainly on data sources available at the national level, the
general existence and quality of data sources at the state and local lev-
els are also discussed. For purposes of this report, both primary and
secondary data sources are identified. Primary data sources are clas-
sified by the following types of data:
● Usage, trip, and user characteristics, including couts of users, trip
patterns, and demographic socioeconomic characteristics;1
● Data on the preferences, needs, and attitudes of current or poten-
tial bicyclists and pedestrians;
● Facility characteristics, including the locations and attributes of
pedestrian and bicycle facilities;
1 A separate category could be established on traffic flow characteristics that would include
pedestrian and bicycle volumes, speeds, and traffic densities on individual facilities. Traffic
flow data are routinely collected for motor vehicles to characterize system performance and
congestion, but with the exception of specific research studies, only volume (count) data are
collected for bicycle and pedestrian traffic. In this report, counts are discussed in conjunction
with related survey data on usage, since both are collected with similar objectives.
13
● Crash and safety data, including crashes and other data related to the
safety and security of bicycle and pedestrian travel; and
● Expenditures on and capital stocks of vehicles and facilities.
While only primary data sources are treated in detail, a number of secondary
data sources are also discussed briefly because these were identified in the
course of the study as being important to practitioners. These secondary sources
include:
● Results of research studies,
● Manuals of practice, and
● Other sources.
A summary of existing data sources is provided in table 2-1.
USAGE, TRIP, AND USER CHARACTERISTICS
This broad category of data answers the questions of who is traveling, how,
where, when, and why. Usage data may take the form of number of travelers
by facility, time of day, geographic area, etc. Data on trips include items such as
origin and destination, trip length, mode, route, purpose, and time of day.
Characteristics of the trip maker or “system user” may include demographic
and socioeconomic factors such as age, gender, income, household structure,
and other information that describes the person and his or her situation in life.
Data may be reported either in aggregate or disaggregate form. Aggregated data
show statistics such as mode split or average income for all persons living in a
census tract. Disaggregated data include records of the characteristics and trip
patterns of individual people or households. Disaggregated data can be ana-
lyzed directly for modeling purposes. Data on usage, trip, and user characteris-
tics are initially collected at a disaggregated level but are frequently reported or
available for analysis only at some level of aggregation. In the aggregate, per-
sonal and trip variables may be cross-classified, e.g., trip length distributions by
mode, purpose, and/or age.
Data sources for usage, trip, and user characteristics include:
● Counts of bicyclists or pedestrians,
● The U.S. decennial census,
● Metropolitan household travel surveys,
● The Nationwide Personal Travel Survey (NPTS),
● Other surveys conducted sporadically at a national level, and
● Various local surveys and market studies.
Table 2-1
Existing Sources of Bicycle and Pedestrian Data (includes national and multistate-level sources only)
USAGE, TRIP, AND USER CHARACTERISTICS; PREFERENCES, NEEDS, AND ATTITUDES

Data source Agency Scale Frequency Coverage Contents Uses Availability
U.S. Census: U.S. Census National 10 years U.S. Aggregate (by * Journey-to-work * CD-ROM
Summary Tape Bureau population metropolitan area, mode shares/trends * Web query
Files, Census (entire) civil division, block *Journey-to-work * Summary
Transportation group)—socio- correlation with tables:
Planning Package economic data, aggregate-level www.census.
journey-to-work socioeconomic data gov
mode share
U.S. Census: U.S. Census National 10 years U.S. Disaggregate— Possible applications Purchase
Public Use Bureau population household and in bike/pedestrian CD-ROM for
Microsample (5% at county individual analysis $100 to $450
level, 1% at socioeconomic data,
metropolitan journey-to-work
level) mode share
Metropolitan Metropolitan Metropolitan 10–20 Metropolitan Disaggregate— * Mode shares/trends From
Area planning area years area popula- household and * Socioeconomic data individual
Household organizations tion (random individual characteristics MPOs
Travel Surveys (MPOs) sample of socioeconomic data, * Trip characteristics
1,000 to trip patterns * Behavior modeling
10,000
households)
Nationwide U.S. DOT, National 5 years U.S. popula- Disaggregate— * Mode shares/trends * CD-ROM
Personal Federal tion (random household and * Socioeconomic data * Web query
Transportation Highway sample of individual characteristics * Summary

Survey Administration 22,000 socioeconomic data, * Trip characteristics tables:
households) trip patterns * Behavior modeling www-cta.
ornl.gov/npts
National National National Annual U.S. Cycling participation Conditions and Published in
Sporting Sporting population (6+ times in previous trends analysis Statistical
Goods Goods (random year) by age, gender Abstract of the
Association Association sample) United States,
www.census.
gov/statab/
www
15
Continued on next page
16
Bicycle and Pedestrian Data
Table 2-1 (Continued)
USAGE, TRIP, AND USER CHARACTERISTICS; PREFERENCES, NEEDS, AND ATTITUDES

National Bike Consumer National 1991 U.S. User and usage * Helmet usage Published
Helmet Use Product 1998 population characteristics * Bicyclist characteristics www.cpsc.gov/
Survey Safety (1,000+ * Crash analysis library/helmet.
Commission (CPSC) sample) (exposure) html
Adult Bicyclist University of National 1995 Adults (2,300+ Characteristics, Bicyclist Published
Survey (Moritz) Washington sample) exposure characteristics
Rodale Press Rodale Press National Varies Adults Cycle, walk, run— * Conditions and Published
Surveys (1,000+ participation, user trends analysis
sample) characteristics, * User preferences
purpose, incentives,
facility availability
National Health Centers for National Annual Sample of Frequency of Conditions and Summary
Interview Disease U.S. physical activity; trends analysis tables:
Survey Control and population demographic www.cdc.gov/
Prevention (CDC) information nchs
Behavioral Risk CDC National/ Continuous Monthly Optional module on * Conditions and * CD-ROM
Factor state random exercise: distance and trends analysis * Summary
Surveillance sample frequency of jog/walk; * Pedestrian tables:
System optional state characteristics www.cdc.gov/
questions may include (recreation only) from nccdphp/brfss
bike helmet use exercise module
Survey on U.S. DOT, National 1999 U.S. Socioeconomic data * Developing Forthcoming
Public Beliefs National population characteristics; educational efforts,
and Awareness Highway (random accident exposure; incident
About Traffic Safety sample of driving, walking, countermeasures
Pedestrian and Administration 4,000) biking exposure;
Bike Safety (NHTSA) willingness to walk/
Problems bike; attitudes and
knowledge of road
users and usage
FACILITIES
Census TIGER/ U.S. Census National Continuous Entire road Location, name, Conditions analysis— CD-ROM
Line files Bureau network in address, ranges street topographic mea- www.census.
U.S. sures (connectivity, gov
route density, etc.)
National U.S. DOT, National Continuous Nationally Location, name, Attributes of CD-ROM
Transportation Bureau of significant capacity, classification, major roads www.bts.gov
Atlas Databases Transportation roads traffic volume
Statistics
Rail Trail Rails-to-Trails National Continuous All rail trails Location, length, Conditions and trends Summary
Database Conservancy in U.S. surface, cost, contacts analysis tables: www.
railtrails.org
State road State DOTs State Continuous Federal, state Road characteristics, Facilities inventory, Varies
databases highways traffic volume, needs identification,
crashes crash studies
CRASHES AND SAFETY

Fatality Analysis U.S. DOT, National Continuous All fatal Attributes of crash, Fatal crash analysis * Web query
Reporting NHTSA crashes vehicle, person, driver * CD-ROM
System involving motor (100+ attributes) * Summary
vehicles on tables:
public roads www.nhtsa.
dot.gov/
people/ncsa

National Auto- U.S. DOT, National Continuous Sample of Attributes of crash, Crash analysis * CD-ROM
motive Sampling NHTSA police accident vehicle, person, driver, * Summary
System— reports for (approx. 90 attributes) tables:
General motor vehicle www.nhtsa.
Estimates crashes dot.gov/
System people/ncsa
National U.S. DOT, National Annual Summary Motor vehicle Conditions and trends Published
Transportation Bureau of statistics based accidents by type; analysis www.bts.gov
Statistics Transportation on General costs; trends
Statistics Estimates System
17
Continued on next page
18
Table 2-1 (Continued)
Bicycle and Pedestrian Data

CRASHES AND SAFETY
National Vital CDC, National Annual All deaths in Cause, circumstances Conditions and trends Data and
Statistics National United States analysis summary tables:
System Center for www.cdc.gov/
Health Statistics nchs
National CDC, National Annual Sample of Cause (including Conditions and trends Data and
Hospital National injuries in motor vehicle) analysis summary tables:
Ambulatory Center for United States www.cdc.gov/
Medical Care Health nchs
Survey Statistics
Accident National National Annual Based on Summary statistics on Conditions and trends www.nsc.org
Facts Safety Council General pedestrian, bicyclist, analysis
Estimates motor vehicle injuries
System, National
Center for Health
Statistics data
National CPSC National Annual Sample of Injury characteristics Bicycle injury Request from
Electronic Injury injuries and circumstances analysis CPSC
Surveillance associated with
System consumer
products
State Data U.S. DOT, 17 states Data from Varies by state * Crash analysis * Data files
System NHTSA police accident * Conditions and trends available with
reports for analysis state permis-
motor vehicle sion and fee
crashes * Summary
information:
www.nhtsa.dot.
gov/people/ncsa
Crash Outcome U.S. DOT, States (19 Continuous/ Links highway crash Cost, cost burden Contact
Data Evaluation NHTSA currently) annual data to medical and analysis individual
System financial outcome data states
State-level crash State DOTs State Continuous Federal, state Crashes (location, * Deficiency and needs Varies
databases highways characteristics) identification
* Crash analysis
CRASHES AND SAFETY (Continued)
Police accident State, local Local Continuous All crashes with Crashes (location, Crash analysis Varies
reports police agencies minimum characteristics)
damage value
Safety U.S. DOT, National Continuous/ Incidents on Incident characteristics Pedestrian incidents transit.safety.
Management Federal Transit annual transit property involving transit volpe.dot.gov
Information Administration vehicles, property
Statistics
Federal Railroad U.S. DOT, National Continuous/ Incidents on Incident characteristics Pedestrian incidents safetydata.fra.
Administration Federal Railroad annual railroad property/ involving railroad dot.gov
Administration right-of-way vehicles, property
EXPENDITURES AND CAPITAL STOCKS

Bicycle Bicycle National 5 years Bicycles sold in Sales of bicycles with Conditions and trends Reported in
Manufacturers Manufacturers United States 20+ inch wheels analysis National
Association Association Transportation
Statistics
Consumer Bureau of National Continuous/ U.S. Expenditures on Conditions and trends Purchase
Expenditure Labor annual population bicycles by personal analysis CD-ROM from
Survey Statistics (random and household Bureau of Labor
sample) characteristics Statistics
www.bls.gov/
csxhome.htm

Rodale Press Rodale Press National Varies (last Sample of new Bicycle expenditures Conditions and trends
Surveys 1990) bike purchasers purchase; user analysis
characteristics
GENERAL SOURCES
National U.S. DOT, Bureau National Annual Not Various summary Conditions and trends Published
Transportation of Transportation applicable statistics analysis www.bts.gov
Statistics Statistics
19
Counts
Counts indicate how many people or vehicles are using the system at any given
location. Counts may be differentiated by user characteristics, time of day, or
day of week. In addition, if an appropriate sample is conducted, counts can be
summarized to provide estimates of overall facility or system usage by time,
geographic area, facility type, or user type. Counts have a variety of uses,
including:
● Tracking trends in usage,
● Developing exposure measures for crash analysis,
● Evaluating level of service on a facility by comparing volumes to capacity,
● Identifying and prioritizing improvements, and
● Calibrating travel demand models.
Motor vehicle traffic volumes are monitored through the Highway Performance
Monitoring System (HPMS). The HPMS is a national system for tracking
motor vehicle traffic volumes by vehicle type, facility type, and geographic area
based on counts at a carefully selected sample of locations. No equivalent of the
HPMS exists for monitoring pedestrian and bicycle volumes or distance trav-
eled. While a few cities and metropolitan planning organizations routinely con-
duct pedestrian and bicycle counts, most collect them only sporadically for
specific studies or do not collect them at all.
Existing local count data also vary in quality. When designing a study, consid-
eration must be given to choosing sampling times and collecting enough sam-
ples to account for daily, weekly, and seasonal variations, as well as for random
variations resulting from weather, special events, and other causes. If counts are
to be used to estimate traffic in a larger geographic area, a representative set of
locations must also be sampled. A national compendium of local counts was
published in 1994 by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) as a sup-
plement to the National Bicycling and Walking Study, although such a com-
pendium is not updated on a regular basis (USDOT FHWA 1994).
Census
The decennial census represents a nearly 100-percent enumeration of the U.S.

population, although some variables are collected only for a sample of the pop-
ulation. Data are publicly available in aggregate form, with most variables
available at the geographic level of the census tract (roughly 4,000 to 5,000
people) and some available at the block or block-group level. Data of interest
to bicycle and pedestrian planning include work-trip characteristics—notably
mode, travel time, time leaving for work, time leaving from work, and
Existing Data Sources 21
origin/destination areas. Various personal and household characteristics,

including number of automobiles available to the household, are also relevant.
Some cross-classifications are available in the Census Transportation Planning
Package (CTPP), such as travel time by mode and mode use by gender, at the
geographic level of the city or minor civil division. The CTPP is also available
at the census tract or traffic analysis zone (TAZ) level for many urban areas.
The Census Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) contains disaggregated data
for a sample of the population, five percent at the county level and one percent
at the metropolitan area level.
Census data are widely used in transportation planning. Major advantages of
census data include public availability, ease of use, and reliability due to the
large sample size. Also, uniform data are available for the entire country at a
fine level of geographic detail. For pedestrian and bicycle planning, the census
is generally used for comparing journey-to-work mode shares among different
areas. Some aggregate-level studies have used census data to relate journey-to-
work bicycle or walk mode shares to other variables such as average income,
population density, and zero-vehicle households. These studies have used data
at the level of the census tract, city, and metropolitan area (e.g., Ashley 1989
and Nelson 1997).
Some commonly recognized limitations of census data for pedestrian and bicy-
cle analysis are listed here:
● Only work trips are included. Thus, if census data are used to represent
overall levels of walking and bicycling, these must be assumed to be in
some proportion to work-trip use. Work trips make up less than one-
quarter of all trips, so nonwork trip-making patterns are not captured by
the census.
● The data may not represent “normal” pedestrian and bicycle work-trip
mode use. The census is conducted the first week in April, and respon-
dents are asked to report their most frequently used mode in the past
week. Mode use may fluctuate depending on weather conditions, and
occasional bicyclists or walkers would not be included. Also, trips by mul-
tiple modes (e.g., a walk to the subway) cannot be determined.
● Data are not available at both the disaggregate level and a high level of
geographic detail. PUMS disaggregated data are only available for small
samples at the level of the city or county, and the application of PUMS
data to pedestrian and bicycle analysis has been very limited.
● The census is collected only once every 10 years, so it is not useful for
tracking short-term trends or changes. In the future, the Census Bureau
plans to use the new American Community Survey to provide updated
data every year instead of once in 10 years.
Because of the large amount of data that must be collected in the census and the
need to obtain a high level of response, it is unlikely that the census can be mod-
ified to collect more comprehensive data related to pedestrian and bicycle trav-
el. It is possible, however, that further detailed analyses of the existing
disaggregated census data—performed confidentially and released in aggregate
or summary form for public use—could help relate journey-to-work character-
istics to personal characteristics, household characteristics, and any relevant
tract-level data such as population density.
Metropolitan Household Travel Surveys
Household travel surveys are conducted in most larger metropolitan areas by

the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) on a 5- to 20-year basis. These
surveys are usually administered to a sample of 1,000 or more area households
whose members then record their trip patterns (time, origin, destination, mode,
purpose, cost, etc.) over the course of one or two days. Characteristics of the
traveler and of the household are also recorded.
Household surveys are used in travel forecasting to develop and calibrate mod-
els of travel behavior. These models are used in transportation planning to pre-
dict future travel patterns, assess transportation needs, and examine the effects
of various transportation investments or other policy decisions. For example,
surveys conducted by the Metropolitan Service District in Portland, OR
(Portland Metro); the Chicago Area Transportation Authority; and the Capital
District Transportation Commission in Albany, NY, have been used to develop
mode choice models that predict walk mode shares as a function of the quality
of the pedestrian environment. Household surveys can also can be used to
develop descriptive statistics about trip and traveler characteristics. The data
sets can generally be obtained from the local MPO for further analysis.
The information gathered in household travel surveys is, in theory, useful for
assessing characteristics of pedestrian and bicycle travel. In practice, the surveys
suffer from a number of limitations:
● Many MPOs cannot afford to conduct expensive travel surveys. For those
that do conduct regular surveys, the sample size and trip reporting are
often too small to provide useful information for detailed bicycle and
pedestrian planning. A survey of 3,000 people with a 2 percent bicycle
mode share yields 60 bicycle travelers. This is too small a sample to yield
statistically significant information for any subset of the sample, for
example, to examine how characteristics vary by geographic area or trip
purpose.
● Trips solely for the purpose of recreation, such as a stroll or bicycle ride,
are not included.
● Walk trips (particularly short trips such as from work to a cash machine)
are commonly underreported. Also, walk trips to access other modes,
notably transit, are often not tracked separately in travel surveys.
● The surveys provide only limited information on the travel patterns of
children. The parent completing the survey is generally asked to report
trips for children from age five to somewhere in the teens. As a result of
this proxy reporting, not all trips may be noted.
MPOs are developing more sophisticated travel survey methods as they search
both for better data and cheaper data-collection methods, but significant limi-
tations still exist. Some potential enhancements to address the above limitations
for pedestrian and bicycle analysis include:
● The survey sample size can be increased to obtain data on more bicycle
and walk trips for analysis. The costs of obtaining a sufficient sample size
for detailed analysis, however, may be prohibitive. As an alternative, areas
with high levels of pedestrian and bicycle travel may be oversampled, or
these groups may be targeted in other ways similar to obtaining sufficient
samples of transit riders through on-board surveys. Portland Metro, for
example, collected additional surveys in densely populated urban neigh-
borhoods that were likely to have higher numbers of pedestrian trips.
Effective means of obtaining larger, representative samples of bicycle and
pedestrian travelers is an area in which further research and implementa-
tion experience is needed.
● Proper survey design and interviewer training can greatly reduce the
underreporting of short-walk trips and transit-access trips.
● A few areas are testing “time-use” surveys, in which all daily activities
rather than just trips are recorded. Time-use surveys, if designed proper-
ly, could identify the time and length (although not the route taken) for
purely recreational walk and bicycle trips. Portland, OR, has adopted this
methodology and it is being tested in Seattle, WA.
● Underreporting of short trips, walk trips, and trips by children may be
reduced or eliminated through the use of global positioning system (GPS)
receivers to record travel patterns. GPS could also be used to identify spe-
cific routes taken for walk and bicycle trips. The use of GPS in travel sur-
veys is currently being explored in Atlanta, GA, Phoenix, AZ, and
Lexington, KY. The first two are multimodal surveys, including bicycle
and pedestrian modes.
● In addition to collecting trip data, household surveys may include a
stated-preference component that can be used to assess travelers’ prefer-
ences for various hypothetical mode and route choices. Stated-preference
components have been added to surveys in areas such as Portland, OR,
and Dallas, TX, to assess factors such as road pricing and residential loca-
tion choice. Questions could also be developed that focus on bicycle and
pedestrian travel incentives and options. Conducting stated preference
surveys in conjunction with travel surveys provides compatible data sets
and thus, potentially, more useful information than conducting these sur-
veys independently. On the other hand, creating longer surveys increases
the cost of the survey and also has the potential to reduce the quality and
rate of responses.
Nationwide Personal Travel Survey
The Nationwide Personal Travel Survey (NPTS) is a household travel survey

administered on a national level. Recent surveys took place in 1983, 1990, and
1995, and the next is planned for 2000–2001 with results available in early
2002. In 1995, the national survey included approximately 21,000 randomly
selected households. Additional households were sampled in specific areas (met-
ropolitan areas or states) that elected to use the NPTS as a supplement or
replacement for their metropolitan household travel survey.
The NPTS is used to analyze the nature and amount of personal travel, the rela-
tionship between socioeconomic characteristics and travel patterns, and trends
in passenger travel. The NPTS sample is large enough to provide meaningful
information for pedestrian and bicycle trips at the aggregate level by trip pur-
pose and trip rates by mode, and social, economic, and demographic charac-
teristics of the respondents. The NPTS is publicly available for analysis through
the Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s website, which also has publications and
summary data from the 1995 survey. The Bureau of Transportation Statistics’s
(BTS’s) NPTS CD-ROM (BTS-CD-09) contains publications and data for the
1983 and 1990 surveys.
Although the NPTS is a nationally representative survey with a relatively large
sample size, it suffers from some of the same limitations as metropolitan house-
holds surveys, discussed above. The NPTS is not detailed enough to identify
bicycle and pedestrian trip and traveler characteristics for specific geographic
areas, such as a metropolitan area. Increasing the sample size to allow for more
geographic specificity presents significant cost implications, just as it does with
metropolitan household surveys. Modifications similar to those noted above
could be made for metropolitan household travel surveys, including oversam-
pling areas with high levels of pedestrian and bicycle travel, and improving the
questionnaire and providing better interviewer training to reduce underreport-
ing of short-walk trips and transit-access trips. However, longer surveys can suf-
fer from a reduction in quality and a lower rate of response, all of which must
be considered along with cost implications when designing the survey.
Box 2-1
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission Study
In 1990 and 1991, the U.S. Consumer Product use roughly double those of most other age
Safety Commission (CPSC) undertook a major groups.
national study of bicycle use and hazard pat-
terns. CPSC conducted two surveys: an injury Questions about riding habits showed that
survey utilizing National Electronic Injury most bicyclists (64 percent) ride a substantial
Surveillance System (NEISS) data and a nation- proportion of the time on neighborhood streets
al random-digit-dial telephone survey to obtain with low traffic volumes. This compares with
exposure data. The results were combined to 29 percent on sidewalks and playgrounds, 17
evaluate bicycle usage and risk factors. percent on bike paths, 18 percent on unpaved
roads, 7 percent on major thoroughfares, and
The exposure survey estimated that there are 11 percent on unpaved surfaces or trails. The
about 67 million bicyclists who ride a total of survey also noted that collisions or near-colli-
about 15 billion hours annually. Most bicycling sions with moving motor vehicles accounted
is for recreational purposes, but almost 9 per- for only about 10 percent of injuries. The
cent of riders use their bicycles primarily for remainder resulted from a variety of other fac-
commuting to work or school. The survey con- tors, such as collisions with other bicyclists,
firms the importance of children’s travel and pedestrians, or stationary objects; stunts; and
recreation, which is not measured in many sur- falls on rough or slippery riding surfaces.
veys: about 22 percent of bicyclists are under
age 10 and 40 percent are under age 15. The SOURCE: Gregory B. Rodgers et al., Bicycle Use and
survey also noted a higher risk of injury among Hazard Patterns in the United States, prepared for the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, 1994.
children, with injury rates per million hours of
Other National Surveys
Various other national-level surveys are occasionally conducted to obtain char-

acteristics of pedestrian and bicycle travelers. Recently, these have included the
following:
● Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). In the early 1990s, the
CPSC undertook a study of bicycle use and hazard patterns (see box 2-1).
A nationwide telephone survey was conducted of over 1,200 bicyclists to
obtain data on exposure (usage patterns) to complement a survey of bicy-
cle-related injuries reported in hospital emergency rooms. The exposure
survey provided information on rider characteristics, such as age and gen-
der, as well as use patterns, such as trip purpose and type of facilities used
(Rodgers 1994).
● National adult bicyclist survey. A survey of over 2,300 adult bicycle
commuters was conducted in 1995 to determine characteristics and expe-
rience of bicyclists (Moritz 1997). The survey provides information on
bicycle commuter personal characteristics, trip length and frequency,
facilities available, equipment, motivation for commuting, crashes, and
perceived safety. The survey was distributed over the Internet and via
mailed responses to advertisements and, therefore, does not represent a
random sample of commuters.
● Recreational surveys. The National Sporting Goods Association conducts
an annual national survey to determine participation (six or more times
in the previous year) in a variety of sporting activities, including bicycling,
by age and gender. Results are published in the Census Bureau’s annual
Statistical Abstract of the United States. Rodale Press occasionally con-
ducts surveys of 1,000 or more adults to identify participation in bicy-
cling, walking, or running activities according to personal characteristics,
incentives, and availability of facilities. These surveys may be most useful
for tracking national trends in recreational bicycling and walking. Survey
results are published in aggregate format, but this study did not find any
instances where disaggregated data were made publicly available for
analysis.
● Health and physical activity surveys. The Behavioral Risk Factor
Surveillance System (BRFSS) is an annual survey designed to assess
health-related risk factors including physical activity. The BRFSS is
designed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and is
administered at the state level by State Departments of Health via month-
ly random samples. The survey is designed with a number of optional
modules that states can implement, including a module on exercise that
includes the frequency and distance of jogging and walking, bicycle hel-
met use, and other information. Survey results could be used to analyze
trends in recreational activity, including analysis by demographic charac-
teristics. Annual sample sizes usually fall within the range of 1,000 to
4,000 per state, allowing some amount of disaggregation within each
state. The modular design of the survey also means that uniform data can
be collected in all states that choose to apply the optional modules. To
date, however, it does not appear that any states have applied the exercise
module. BRFSS survey data can be obtained on CD-ROM from the
Government Printing Office and summary statistics are also available on
the Internet.
Another annual health-related survey is the National Health Interview
Survey (NHIS), which includes the frequency of physical activity as one of
its data items. This survey could also be used for trend analysis. The survey
does not currently ask for type of physical activity, however, and does not
yield data at the level of the local community or metropolitan area.
● NHTSA Survey on Public Beliefs. During 1999, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) conducted a national telephone
survey of 4,000 people on beliefs and awareness about pedestrian and
bicycle safety and accommodation. The survey included demographic and

socioeconomic characteristics; involvement in accidents; participation in
driving, walking, and bicycling; willingness to walk or bicycle; and atti-
tudes and knowledge regarding road users and usage. The results of the
survey will be used to develop educational efforts and incident counter-
measures.
Local Surveys
In some areas local surveys have been conducted of bicyclists and/or pedestri-
ans to assess personal and trip characteristics. University researchers, city or
metropolitan planners, or other interested groups may conduct such surveys.
The content, scope, and quality of these surveys varies considerably according
to the specific purpose, budget, and level of knowledge of those responsible for
the survey. Nevertheless, these surveys can yield useful information for local
planning. Surveys of bicyclists to determine usage patterns and personal prefer-
ences have been conducted by city or regional transportation planning agencies
in areas such as Boulder, CO, Madison, WI, San Diego, CA, and Seattle, WA.
In many cities with rail transit systems, transit agencies routinely conduct pas-
senger surveys that include mode of access to the station. For example, surveys
conducted by the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) in
Boston; the Chicago Transit Authority and METRA commuter rail in Chicago;
and the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) in San Francisco have identi-
fied the numbers and percentages of transit accessing each station by walking,
bicycling, or other modes of travel.
Local survey results might in some cases be useful to planners in other areas.
Carefully performed surveys can yield valid and transferable information on
traveler characteristics, trip patterns, and preferences. Some local surveys have
been publicized nationally, for example through FHWA’s National Bicycling
and Walking Study, which published a synthesis of survey findings in 1991
(USDOT FHWA 1992). There is no ongoing effort to identify and disseminate
local survey results, however, and such an undertaking would probably prove
difficult. Furthermore, even if local results could be made available on a wide-
spread basis, it is important to recognize the specific situation and limitations
of each survey before generalizing to other areas.
PREFERENCES, NEEDS, AND ATTITUDES
Data on bicyclist and pedestrian preferences, needs, and attitudes attempt to

answer such questions as, how well is the existing transportation system meet-
ing people’s need or desire to bicycle or walk? What improvements would be
most important in increasing the convenience, safety, and enjoyability of
people’s travel experience? What improvements would most effectively induce

more people to walk or bike?
These data may be collected through attitudinal surveys of existing and poten-
tial bicyclists and pedestrians. Quantitative models of behavior can also be used
to develop information on user preferences. These models may be based either
on “stated preference” survey data, in which people are asked to make choices
among various alternatives, or on “revealed preference” data, based on obser-
vations of people’s actual behavior as measured by travel surveys and counts.
Attitudinal Surveys
Attitudinal and preference data are often collected in conjunction with surveys
to determine other data, such as usage patterns, personal characteristics, and
crash experience. National survey efforts that investigate preferences, needs,
and attitudes are described above and include the recent national adult bicyclist
survey (Moritz 1997), the 1999 NHTSA Survey on Public Beliefs, and opinion
polls such as the 1991 Harris Poll. Also, as identified above, local surveys have
been conducted in some areas to assess user preferences, needs, and attitudes.
These surveys can be useful for identifying specific concerns and needs in a com-
munity or region.
Modeling
Choice or demand models have been developed by some researchers and plan-
ners to predict bicycle or pedestrian mode or route choice based on character-
istics of the mode or route (e.g., travel time, facilities available). These efforts
have produced some quantitative information on relative preferences, for
example, for bicycle lanes versus off-street trails. The Regional Transportation
Authority in Chicago, for example, recently developed a model to predict mode
of access to transit as a function of sidewalks, pathways, intersection improve-
ments, and bicycle parking facilities in station areas (Wilbur Smith Associates
1996).
A recent FHWA guidebook identifies a range of demand modeling efforts and
summarizes the state of the practice in modeling methodologies (Cambridge
Systematics and BFA 1999). The success of these efforts has been limited, how-
ever, both by a lack of data and limitations in methodologies. To date, no com-
prehensive effort has been made to compare the preferences data developed by
various models and to assess their validity for widespread use in demand fore-
casting.
FACILITIES
Data on pedestrian and bicycle facilities may describe the type of facility (side-
walk, shared-use path, on-road bike lane, pedestrian bridge, etc.), location,
length, width, physical condition, topography, intersection characteristics, and
other relevant features. Data on road facilities, such as number of lanes, lane
width, pavement quality, and intersection characteristics, can also be relevant to
analysis of bicycle and pedestrian travel.
Data on individual facilities need to be geographically referenced in some way
to be meaningful. This referencing may occur in a format as simple as a paper
map or a list of roads by jurisdiction. Increasingly, however, Geographic
Information Systems (GIS) are being used to maintain facility databases. GIS
can include databases in the form of lines (e.g., route segments) or points (e.g.,
intersections or bridges). GIS software packages provide a variety of analysis
and visual display capabilities that take advantage of the geographic nature of
the data.
Data on facilities can also be reported in summary formats. These might
include, for example, percentage of a city’s street network with continuous side-
walks, or miles of bike route by type and pavement condition within a city. An
example of aggregate reporting on road and highway facilities is the Federal
Highway Administration’s annual Highway Statistics (USDOT FHWA 2000).
Potential sources of data on bicycle and pedestrian facilities include:
● The U.S. Census Bureau’s Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding
and Reference (TIGER) files,
● The National Transportation Atlas,
● The Rails-to-Trails Conservancy’s recreational trails database,
● State road databases, and
● Local road information.
Census TIGER Files
The U.S. Census Bureau maintains its TIGER database, a digital database of
geographic features, including roads, covering the entire United States. The
database contains information about these features, such as location in latitude
and longitude, name, type of feature, address ranges for most streets, geo-
graphic relationship to other features, and other related information.
TIGER/Line files are publicly available and can be imported into most GIS soft-
ware packages.
The TIGER/Line street network is comprehensive. It has been used in pedestri-

an analysis to analyze the connectivity of local street networks and, thus, the
directness of pedestrian pathways (Hsaio 1997). Its usefulness for pedestrian
and bicycle analysis is somewhat limited because it does not contain any facili-
ty attributes such as street widths, number of lanes, presence of sidewalks, etc.
In addition, it does not contain pedestrian and bicycle connections that are not
part of the street network, such as alleys, walkways, or pathways. It can, how-
ever, serve as a base map for additional mapping of facilities and characteristics
at the local level.
National Transportation Atlas
The National Transportation Atlas Databases (NTAD) are a collection of geo-

spatial databases, developed by the U.S. Department of Transportation and
other federal agencies, depicting transportation facilities, networks, and servic-
es of national significance. The databases are designed to be used with GIS
software. Elements of the NTAD can be downloaded or ordered through the
Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) website.
One element of the NTAD is the National Highway Planning Network, a net-
work database representing approximately 400,000 miles of federal-aid roads
in the 50 states and Puerto Rico. It is a topologically connected line database
depicting the locations and centerline alignments of nationally significant roads.
Attributes include route names or numbers, capacity measures, various network
classifications, and traffic volumes.
The NTAD is currently of very limited usefulness for bicycle and pedestrian
planning since it does not include local roads or bicycle and pedestrian facili-
ties. However, it does contain a few attributes (e.g., capacity and traffic vol-
umes) that may be relevant to bicycle and pedestrian planning. It also
demonstrates the potential of GIS technology to make information on trans-
portation facilities readily available and usable on a national scale.
National-level inventories of pedestrian and bicycle facilities, similar to those
maintained for roads and highways, have not been developed.
Recreational Trails Database
The Rails-to-Trails Conservancy maintains a database of trails in the United

States that utilize former railway alignments. The database currently includes
information on the location, mileage, type of surface, contacts, and other infor-
mation as available for specific trails. Summary data on total trails and mileage,
both existing and projected, are available by state. The database may be useful
for tracking trends in the provision of off-road travel/recreation facilities. It is
also a potential repository for other relevant information, such as the number,
characteristics, and trip patterns of trail users by trail as well as characteristics
of trail access and the surrounding area. If enough data of reasonable quality
could be assembled, this might provide the basis for analysis of factors influ-
encing both recreational and utilitarian nonmotorized travel.
State Road Databases
State departments of transportation maintain road databases for the purposes

of statewide transportation planning and programming as well as maintenance
activities. These databases generally include U.S. and state highways. Attributes
may include facility type, number of lanes, capacity, traffic volume, pavement
quality, crashes by type, whether the road is an established bike route, and other
information. The types, quality, and format of the data vary from state to state.
In many states, these data have been incorporated or expanded into statewide
management systems established by Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA).2 Many states also have developed, or are devel-
oping, statewide road databases in GIS format.
State road databases have been used for statewide bicycle route planning in a
number of states, including Illinois, Maine, and North Carolina. Bicycle suit-
ability inventories and route maps have been developed that rate highways for
suitability according to facility type, traffic volume, shoulder width, pavement
quality, and other characteristics. The specific variables and methods for deter-
mining suitability vary from state to state and are summarized in a recent report
by the Texas Transportation Institute (Turner 1997) (see box 2-2). Also, in some
states such as California, the data have been used as a basis for crash studies
because pedestrian and bicycle crashes can be tied to various facility and loca-
tional features.
State databases suffer from the obvious drawback that they do not include local
roads. They also may not include some of the most important characteristics
relevant to bicycle and pedestrian planning and analysis (e.g., not all states
include shoulder width in their inventories). Relevant characteristics could be
added, however, given sufficient resources for data collection. Also, updates
may only be performed every five-to-eight years. State road databases may be
most useful for bicycle route planning and crash analysis in areas where state
and federal highways make up a significant proportion of through routes. The
databases could also be used to report the mileage or percentage of state and
federal roads, by area, considered suitable for bicycling.
2 ISTEA required states to develop six management systems to track transportation assets and system
performance. Three—pavement, bridge, and public transportation—are asset management systems.
The other three—congestion, safety, and intermodal—relate to system performance. The requirement
to develop management systems has since been dropped, although many states have continued with
their development.
Box 2-2
Statewide Bicycle Suitability Criteria
The Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) recently various bicycle suitability criteria is still in its
undertook a survey to determine the extent to inception. The majority of those states that had
which state Departments of Transportation bicycle suitability criteria in place had done so
(DOTs) have developed bicycle suitability cri- to meet state legislation that mandated their
teria for use in state roadway planning. The sur- formation and use as a part of a multimodal
vey revealed that 70 percent (11 of 16 sampled transportation plan. It appeared that the use of
states) had bicycle suitability criteria in place. traffic volume and lane width as primary suit-
The two most common criteria (one or both ability criteria was closely related to the fact
were used in every case) were the traffic vol- that this information was available in state
ume and the width of outside lanes or shoul- DOT databases. In addition to surveying cur-
ders. Thirty-five percent of the states with rent practice, the TTI report also makes recom-
suitability criteria also indicated that they mendations for developing and adopting
looked at heavy vehicles when considering bicycle suitability criteria.
traffic volume, 25 percent considered pave-
ment conditions, and 15 percent included traf- SOURCE: S.M. Turner, C.S. Schafer, and W.P. Stewart,
fic speed or speed limit criteria. Bicycle Suitability Criteria: Literature Review and State-
of-the-Practice Survey, Research Report 3988-1, prepared
by the Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, TX,
The conclusions from the survey indicate that,
1997, Internet: tti.tamu.edu.
with some exceptions, state implementation of
Local Road Information
Cities, counties, or MPOs also maintain records of transportation facilities

within their jurisdiction. Increasingly, this information is being stored in elec-
tronic format, primarily with GIS databases. At one end of the electronic spec-
trum, one can find basic mapping tools showing the location of public roads.
As the databases are enhanced, one can find information on roadway geome-
try, including width of pavement, pavement condition, traffic volumes, presence
of sidewalks, etc. At the other end of the spectrum one might find geo-coded
information describing the compatibility of each facility with bicycling and/or
walking. Portland, OR, for example, has used GIS databases to develop factors
that describe the quality of an area for walking based on sidewalk continuity,
ease of street crossings, and street connectivity.
These more sophisticated tools are typically used in areas that have well-devel-
oped networks of bicycle facilities or pedestrian activity, or in areas that have
well-developed city or regional pedestrian or bicycle programs. While useful for
local planning and system management functions, the data are not typically
organized in a way that can be easily shared with others.
CRASHES AND SAFETY
Increasingly, the word “crash” rather than “accident” is used to refer to inci-
dents that result in property damage, injury, or fatalities to road users. In the
case of pedestrians and bicycles, falls can also result in injuries and property
damage and should be included in safety nomenclature. Data on crashes and
falls can include the location of the incident; number and attributes of vehicles
and people involved; damage and injuries; characteristics of the incident loca-
tion; and contributing factors. Also related to safety, data on personal security
or crime is often relevant to bicycle and pedestrian travelers.
Crash and other safety data can be used:
● To identify trends by geographic area, facility type, severity, contributing
factors, etc.;
● To identify potential hazardous locations;
● To identify contributing factors to crashes and severity, including charac-
teristics of the individuals involved, vehicles, and environment;
● To identify potential countermeasures to reduce crashes;
● To evaluate the safety of various facility designs and operational policies;
● To identify crash costs; and
● To prioritize safety improvements.
Crash and other safety data are most useful when they can be related to expo-
sure data, a measure of the number of people at risk for a crash. Absolute num-
bers of crashes on a facility, for example, are not very meaningful unless they
can be related to the number of users of the facility. Dividing total crashes by
an exposure measure indicates the risk or likelihood of a crash per trip or dis-
tance traveled. A road with a high number of bicycle accidents and high bicy-
cle volumes may be safer (as measured by crashes per mile of travel) than a road
with a low number of bicycle accidents and low bicycle volumes.
The ability to associate crash data with facility data, such as shoulder width or
intersection characteristics, and with performance data for other modes, such
as traffic volumes and speeds, is also useful in crash investigation and safety
studies.
Sources of pedestrian and bicycle crash and safety data include:
● National crash and incident databases,
● National mortality and injury databases,
● State crash databases, and

● Police accident reports.
National Crash and Incident Databases
NHTSA maintains two national crash databases for public use: the Fatality
Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and the National Automotive Sampling
System General Estimates System (NASS GES). The FARS is a database of all
fatal crashes involving motor vehicles on public roads. It contains over 100
attributes of the crash, vehicle, and people involved. GES data come from a
nationally representative sample of police-reported motor vehicle crashes of all
types, from minor to fatal. Approximately 90 data elements, collected from
police accident reports, are coded into a common format.
Both the FARS and GES databases are available from NHTSA, and the FARS
can be queried online. NHTSA also produces an annual summary report of
crash data entitled Traffic Safety Facts. This document includes summary sta-
tistics for pedestrian and bicycle crashes, such as fatalities and injuries by age,
gender, location (intersection or nonintersection), time of day, and related fac-
tors. NHTSA also produces a related series of traffic safety briefs, including lit-
erature on bicycling and pedestrians. BTS and the National Safety Council also
produce annual summary reports that include some data from the FARS and
GES (USDOT BTS 1998; NSC 1999).
Together, FARS and the GES have proven to be useful databases for tracking
trends and for national studies of crash characteristics, causes, and potential
countermeasures. Both databases can be used for research on pedestrian and
bicycle crashes that involve motor vehicles. Although FARS provides a com-
prehensive inventory of fatalities, deaths make up only a small proportion of
crashes. Data on nonfatal crashes are less comprehensive and reliable. The GES
suffers from potential sampling errors, and minor-injury and property-damage-
only crashes are typically underreported. Also, the GES data are limited by the
content and accuracy of the police reports from which they are obtained (see
section on police accident reports).
FARS and the GES also suffer from some specific limitations for pedestrian and
bicycle crash analysis. Neither database includes crashes that do not involve a
motor vehicle.3 Also, the databases do not include a number of variables that
may be important specifically in bicycle or pedestrian crash analysis. Examples
include whether the bicyclist was wearing a helmet, or whether objects were
present that might have obscured visibility. A lack of both appropriate crash
3According to a study by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, 10 percent of fatalities and 90
percent of injuries to bicyclists did not involve a motor vehicle (Rodgers et al. 1994).
variables and consistent reporting of relevant variables is a general problem

with police accident reports. Specific crash data needs and mechanisms to
improve reporting are discussed in more detail in chapter 4.
There are at least two potential national-level sources of pedestrian and bicycle
incidents involving transit and railroads. The Federal Transit Administration’s
Safety Management Information Statistics (SAMIS) tracks incidents on transit
property. The Federal Railroad Administration maintains a record of incidents
on railroad property and rights-of-way.
National Mortality and Injury Databases
The National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), run by the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, maintains databases that may be useful for
tracking pedestrian and bicycle injury trends. The National Vital Statistics
System (NVSS) includes annual reporting of all deaths in the United States, clas-
sified by cause (e.g., motor vehicle) and circumstance (collision with motor
vehicle, animal, bicycle, pedestrian, or fixed object, or fall). The National
Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) includes a sample of
injuries in the United States classified by cause. Some summaries of NCHS data
on pedestrian and bicyclist injuries are published in the National Safety
Council’s annual Injury Facts (formerly Accident Facts).
One advantage of these sources over motor vehicle crash databases is that they
allow tracking of pedestrian and bicycle injuries and fatalities that do not
involve motor vehicles. Depending on the geographic resolution at which the
data can be analyzed, they could be used to develop local measures of risk (e.g.,
pedestrian injuries per capita). Also, the NHAMCS could potentially allow a
better analysis of injury characteristics and the resulting costs than is provided
by police accident reports. On the other hand, without linkages to specific crash
or location data the usefulness of these databases for crash investigation is lim-
ited or nonexistent. The authors are unaware of applications of these data to
pedestrian and bicycle injury analysis.
Another source of data on bicyclist injuries is the National Electronic Injury
Surveillance System (NEISS), maintained by the Consumer Product Safety
Commission. NEISS is based on a sample of hospitals that are statistically rep-
resentative of hospital emergency rooms nationwide. From the data collected,
estimates can be made of the numbers of injuries associated with consumer
products (including bicycles and bicycle helmets) and injuries treated in hospi-
tal emergency departments. Data are collected on a broad range of injury-
related issues, covering hundreds of product categories, and provide national
estimates of the number and severity of product-related injuries. The NEISS
data have been used in at least one study on bicycle-related injuries (Rodgers et
al. 1994; Tinsworth 1993). NEISS information can be obtained by contacting

the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
State Crash Databases
Most states maintain, in varying forms, their own crash databases. NHTSA has
recently undertaken efforts to make state-level information more widely avail-
able and useful. One product of these efforts is the State Data System (SDS).
The SDS includes crash files from 17 participating states. The data are taken
from police accident reports and the specific data collected vary by state. Data
files are available from the individual states with state permission and a fee.
NHTSA has also produced a report from these data, State Data System: A
Summary of Motor Vehicle Traffic Crashes from State Crash Data Files, which
is available on its website. The summary report includes pedestrian fatalities
and injuries by age, location, and state.
Another NHTSA effort to make better use of existing state databases is the
Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System (CODES) project. CODES is a project
to link highway crash data to medical and financial outcome data. The linked
data were originally used to demonstrate the effectiveness of safety belts and
motorcycle helmets on death, disability, and costs. While linked data have not
been used specifically for bicycle and pedestrian crash analysis, linkage repre-
sents a potentially useful tool to conduct better crash analysis without collect-
ing additional data. By linking crash data to medical and financial records,
specific factors in bicycle and pedestrian crashes (helmet use, type of crash, loca-
tion, etc.) could be more closely linked to injury outcomes and the resulting
costs. This may assist with targeting resources for prevention and designing
appropriate countermeasures.
A similar effort is FHWA’s Highway Safety Information System (HSIS), which
currently contains state crash data for eight states—California, Illinois, Maine,
Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, Utah, and Washington. These crash
data are linked to roadway inventory files and traffic volume data. HSIS allows
users to analyze a large number of safety-related problems that can range from
basic “problem identification” issues to modeling efforts that attempt to predict
future accidents from roadway and traffic characteristics. HSIS is limited to
state roads, however, and does not cover local streets.
State-level databases can potentially provide a more complete sample of crash-
es than contained in the GES. As described above, they can be linked with data
in state road databases, such as facility type and traffic volumes. As a result,
they are generally more useful for local analysis and planning than national
crash databases. Not all state databases include crashes on local roads, howev-
er, and often do not provide enough detail for needed analyses. Also, as with
the GES, the data are based on police accident reports and suffer from the same
limitations in reporting.
Police Accident Reports4
Police accident reports (PARs) serve as the basis for most local, state, and
national crash databases. Although many incidents are unreported, the majori-
ty of these involve only minor property damage and no significant personal
injury. PARs include specific categories of information on the crash location and
characteristics, as well as crash diagrams and narratives (compiled from witness
reports and follow-up investigation) describing what happened. The quality
and level of information collected varies locally.
PARs can provide a rich source of data for anyone with the resources to ana-
lyze them individually. However, they suffer from a number of limitations and
are frequently inadequate for remediation studies. These limitations include:
● Reporting formats and information vary from state to state (usually, each
state has a standard accident reporting form).
● Important variables are often not collected, and in particular many
variables relevant to pedestrian and bicycle crash analysis may not be
reported.
● Police officers may not be well trained in crash reporting and reports are
often filled out by civilians. As a result, the quality of reporting may vary.
In particular, injury severity is often estimated incorrectly.
● The reports are often available only in hard copy, although many depart-
ments are starting to adopt computerized reporting systems.
The widespread adoption of computer-based reporting systems has the poten-
tial to overcome many of these limitations and provide better and more useable
crash data. These opportunities are discussed in chapter 4.
Security and Crime
In addition to crashes and falls, crime can represent a safety hazard for pedes-
trians and bicyclists. Actual and perceived risks to personal security may in
some cases be a strong deterrent to pedestrian or bicycle travel. Data on the
locations and characteristics of criminal incidents, such as muggings, can help
local authorities improve enforcement in needed areas and reduce risks to trav-
elers. While some aspects of crime prevention are beyond the purview of trans-
4 This section is based on personal communication with Richard Blomberg, Dunlap & Associates,
Stamford, CT.
portation planning agencies, in many cases, site and facility design can influence
the safety of bicyclists and pedestrians. Examples of important design features
include lighting, placement of vegetation, sightlines, and orientation of build-
ings.
Data on incidents of crime are primarily maintained at the city level in police
crime logs. Many of the same statements that apply to local crash reporting
apply to the reporting and management of crime data. For example, cities are
developing—to varying degrees—GIS-based systems that can display the loca-
tions of incidents as well as store the various attributes of these incidents. In this
outreach effort, no particularly outstanding issues regarding security-related
data for bicycle and pedestrian analysis were identified, but nonetheless this is
an area that should not be overlooked. Perceptions of safety are also important,
but may not correlate to the reported level of crime.
EXPENDITURES AND CAPITAL STOCKS5
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) calls for “a
national accounting of expenditures and capital stocks (facilities and vehicles)
on each mode of transportation and intermodal combination.” Ideally, this
would include estimates of the current value of sidewalks, shared-use paths,
pedestrian bridges, etc., but the data currently do not exist.
Tracking of bicycle stocks is one way of tracking trends in bicycle usage. The
following sources on bicycle expenditures and stocks are known:
● The Bicycle Manufacturer’s Association has data on bicycles sold from
1970 to the present in five-year increments. These data are available in the
BTS report, National Transportation Statistics, which is produced
annually (USDOT BTS 1999).
● The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS’s) Consumer Expenditure Survey
includes data on personal expenditures on bicycles. These expenditures
can be tabulated by age, education, income, household composition,
occupation, region of residence, and other variables. Microdata CD-
ROMs that include bicycle expenditure information can be purchased
from BLS.
● Purchasing data are available from industry surveys, such as a 1990 sur-
vey by Rodale Press of 3,200 new bicycle purchasers. These data are not
currently reported on a regular basis.
● The Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) grant management system is
a potential source for FTA funding of bicycle-transit links. However, for
5 This section is partially based on unpublished information from Paul Schimek, Cambridge, MA.
most grants that include funds for bicycle improvements, such as for the
purchase of racks and lockers, the system does not separately identify this
information. Likewise, FHWA tracks bicycle and pedestrian funding for
stand-alone projects—that is, where the funding is not part of a larger
transportation project. The information covers projects that use federal
transportation money (i.e., ISTEA, TEA-21), and does not show spending
categories.
SECONDARY DATA
Secondary data include research-study results, manuals of practice, summary

statistics, and other reports, manuals, or findings that can help practitioners in
planning for bicycle and pedestrian travel. Secondary data are often based on
analysis and synthesis of data from the primary sources discussed above.
Specific types of secondary data might include the safety effects of design fea-
tures; demand impacts of design features, education programs, and other poli-
cies to promote bicycling or walking; and recommended street or sidewalk
design practices.
This report does not include a comprehensive inventory of secondary data
sources by type. However, the outreach effort conducted for this report revealed
both a strong interest in secondary data sources and significant gaps in what is
currently available. The survey revealed a particular need for better dissemina-
tion of existing data and knowledge and for additional research in a number of
key areas. Two of the most commonly requested secondary sources, research
study results and manuals of practice, are discussed here.
Research Study Results
Various research studies have been conducted on factors such as the safety
effects of design features and the demand impacts of various design features and
other policies. Results are frequently disseminated through publication of
reports and conference proceedings, and may be used to inform the develop-
ment of design manuals. Local planners and advocates, however, often do not
have the time or the resources available to locate published studies. Also, many
design features—particularly recent innovations, or those that have seen little
implementation—have not been thoroughly studied. A further complication, in
the case of demand impacts, is that the relative impacts of various policies and
actions may work together in ways that are difficult to untangle. As a result,
applying the results of demand studies to local situations can be very difficult.
The U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Bicycling and Walking Study
produced a series of reports in the 1990s, some of which included references to
research results on various topics. A forthcoming publication by NHTSA will
help disseminate existing safety-related research results. This Bicycle Research

Compendium, to be published by the end of 1999, will provide a synthesis of
NHTSA’s bicycle research program from the 1960s through the 1990s. The
compendium will include a synopsis of each study as well as a subject and
author index.
Manuals of Practice
Manuals of practice assist local planners and engineers by providing standards

they can use, instead of having to “reinvent the wheel” in every situation.
Relevant manuals cover such topics as engineering guidelines for facility design
and traffic engineering. The manuals are based on research studies and imple-
mentation experience concerning safety effects, user preferences, and costs. In
the parallel field of traffic engineering, guidelines have been adopted to the
point of having strong legal implications if not followed.
While it may or may not be desirable to establish certain design practices as
“mandatory” from a legal standpoint, manuals of practice nevertheless provide
important useful guidance to practitioners. In the past few years, the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and
other organizations have been actively involved in the development of improved
guidance for bicycle and pedestrian design. AASHTO’s Guide for the
Development of Bicycle Facilities was updated in 1999. This document repre-
sents a significant enhancement of the prior edition. Because it is focused on
design and not planning, however, it does not represent a source of data.
Several recent efforts to enhance pedestrian design are also notable. In 1998, the
Institute of Transportation Engineers published Design and Safety of Pedestrian
Facilities, which provides an excellent basis for good planning practice. The
document also provides some overview data on crash-related trends. In 1999,
the Transportation Research Board, through AASHTO and its National
Cooperative Highway Research Program, initiated Project 15-20, Planning,
Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities. The first objective of this proj-
ect is to compile the most relevant existing information related to the planning,
design, and operation of pedestrian facilities, including the accommodation of
pedestrians with disabilities. The second objective is to develop a guide for the
planning, design, and operation of pedestrian facilities. Again, this effort is not
focused on data needs, but will include strategies and recommendations for fill-
ing information gaps.
REFERENCES
Ashley, C.A. and C. Banister. 1989. Cycling to Work from Wards in a Metropolitan
Area. Traffic Engineering and Control 30:6–8, June–September.
Cambridge Systematics and Bicycle Federation of America (BFA). 1999. Guidebook

on Methods to Estimate Non-Motorized Travel, FHWA-RD-98-165. Produced
for the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
Washington, DC.
Hsaio, S. 1997. Using GIS for Transit Pedestrian Access Analysis, presented at the
Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, Paper No. 970157.
Washington, DC.
Moritz, W.E. 1997. A Survey of North American Bicycle Commuters: Design and
Aggregate Results, presented at the Transportation Research Board Annual
Meeting, Paper No. 970979. Washington, DC.
National Safety Council (NSC). 1999. Injury Facts (formerly Accident Facts).
Itasca, IL. Internet: www.nsc.org.
Nelson, A.C. and D. Allen. 1997. If You Build Them, Commuters Will Use Them:
Cross-Sectional Analysis of Commuters and Bicycle Facilities, presented at the
Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, Paper No. 970132.
Washington, DC. City Planning Program, Georgia Institute of Technology.
Rodgers, G.B., et al. 1994. Bicycle Use and Hazard Patterns in the United States.
Washington, DC: U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Tinsworth, D., C. Polen, and S. Cassidy. 1993. Bicycle-Related Injuries: Injury,
Hazard, and Risk Patterns, Technical Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission.
Turner, S.M., C.S. Schafer, and W.P. Stewart. 1997. Bicycle Suitability Criteria:
Literature Review and State-of-the-Practice Survey. Texas Transportation
Institute, Research Report 3988-1. College Station, TX. Internet: tti.tamu.edu.
U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Bureau of Transportation Statistics
(BTS). 1998. Transportation Statistics Annual Report 1998, BTS98-S-01.
Washington, DC. Internet: www.bts.org.
______. 1999. National Transportation Statistics 1999, BTS99-04. Washington,
DC. Internet: www.bts.gov.
U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA). 1992. Case Study No. 1: Reasons Why Bicycling and Walking Are Not
Being Used More Extensively As Travel Modes, FHWA-PD-92-041. Prepared for
the National Bicycling and Walking Study by S.A. Goldsmith.
______. 1994. A Compendium of Available Bicycle and Pedestrian Trip Generation
Data in the United States: A Supplement to the National Bicycling and Walking
Study. Washington, DC.
______. Annual. Highway Statistics. Washington, DC. Internet: www.fhwa.dot.gov/
ohim/ohimstat.htm.
Wilbur Smith Associates. 1996. Non-Motorized Access to Transit: Final Report,
prepared for Regional Transportation Authority, Chicago, IL. Internet:
www.bts.gov.
Data Needs
CHAPTER
3
SUMMARY OF DATA NEEDS AND PRIORITIES
T he following section identifies needs for new or improved data as

expressed by practitioners. The section also identifies priorities
for improving data, based on the potential usefulness of the data and
on the quality of existing data. In some cases, these needs can be met
by enhancing existing data collection or data management efforts. In
other cases, new data collection efforts are required.
The outreach effort conducted for this project serves as the primary basis
for this assessment. For this, an email survey was conducted to help
identify bicycle and pedestrian data needs. A brief questionnaire was
emailed to over 60 people active in the fields of planning, research, or
advocacy for bicycles and/or pedestrians. The assessment is also based
on the results of other recent evaluations of data needs for transporta-
tion in general, and for pedestrian and bicycle planning in particular.
These efforts include:
● A conference on information needs for state and local transporta-
tion decisions, cosponsored by the Bureau of Transportation
Statistics (BTS), the Transportation Research Board, the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA), the Federal Transit
Administration, and the American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials (NAS TRB 1997);
43
● A BTS assessment of needs for transportation statistics (USDOT BTS

1998); and
● An FHWA-sponsored guidebook on methods of forecasting bicycle and
pedestrian travel (Cambridge Systematics and BFA 1999).
The appendices provide more detail about the outreach effort and other assess-
ments as well as their results.
Table 3-1 summarizes the identified data needs and provides a rough assessment
of priorities, listed by data type. These priorities are based on the following cri-
teria:
● Quality of existing data,
● Importance of the data for its intended application(s) and audience(s), and
● Usefulness of the data for a range of applications (facility design, trend
analysis, etc.), audiences (researchers, planners, designers, policymakers,
etc.), and geographic scales (local, state, national).
The strength of priorities, of course, must be compared with the level of effort
needed to collect the desired data. Nevertheless, the results indicate areas in
which effort should be directed into developing improved data collection,
analysis, and reporting methods. The remainder of chapter 3 discusses the var-
ious needs identified for each type of data and describes the reasoning behind
this prioritization in greater detail.
Perhaps of highest priority, there is a strong need for comprehensive and sys-
tematic data on usage, including potential usage. Even basic information, such
as total travelers, trips, and distance traveled by bicycle or foot, does not exist
in most areas. Nearly 40 percent of respondents to the outreach effort identi-
fied a need for better data of this type. In particular, respondents expressed three
related but distinct needs:
● Overall indicators of usage and trends in usage, such as numbers of peo-
ple who bicycle or walk; total numbers of bicycle or walk trips; mode
shares; and miles of travel by nonmotorized modes. The need for such
indicators was expressed primarily at the local level but also at the state
and national levels.
● Counts (traffic volumes) on specific facilities, in some cases by character-
istics such as time of day, day of week, or type (e.g., work, shopping,
recreational).
Data Needs 45
Table 3-1
Assessment of Data Priorities
Priority
Quality of for better
Data type Description Primary uses existing data data
Usage, trip, Number of Conditions and trend analysis Poor High
and user bicyclists and
characteristics pedestrians by Network planning (prioritize
facility or improvements)
geographic area
Crash analysis (develop exposure
measures)
Demand forecasting (calibrate

models)
Usage, trip, User and trip Conditions and trend analysis Fair Medium/
and user characteristics high
characteristics by geographic Crash analysis (exposure measures,
area or facility contributing factors)
Demand forecasting (develop

models)
User Relative prefer- Facility design Fair Medium
preferences ences for facility
design character- Network planning (prioritize
istics and other improvements)
supporting factors
Demand forecasting (determine
demand impacts)
Facilities data Characteristics Conditions and trend analysis Fair Medium
relating to quality
for bicycle or Facility design and network planning
pedestrian travel (identify deficiencies, prioritize
(facility-specific; improvements)
or areawide
summary) Crash analysis (identify hazardous
locations, designs)
Demand forecasting (include factors

in models)
Crash and Specific bicycle Crash analysis (contributing factors, Fair Medium/
safety data and pedestrian- countermeasure development) high
relevant crash
variables
Crash and Nonmotor-vehicle Crash analysis (contributing factors, Poor Medium
safety data crash data countermeasure development)
Secondary Safety and demand Facilty design Fair High
data impacts of design
features
Secondary Safety and demand Policy and program design Fair Medium
data impacts of policies,
programs
● Better data on characteristics of pedestrian and bicycle trips and trip-

makers, including distributions of trips by distance, purpose, and time of
day; distributions of travelers and trips according to demographic and
socioeconomic characteristics; and various cross-classifications of these
variables.
More comprehensive and systematic data on usage would assist a wide variety
of data users for many purposes. At the local level, it would aid planners and
advocates in determining current travel patterns, prioritizing improvements,
and tracking the effectiveness of policies, programs, and facility improvements.
It would assist in safety analysis and crash prevention at all levels by providing
safety researchers and local planners with measures of exposure. This is partic-
ularly important since crash data must be combined with exposure data (e.g.,
pedestrian traffic volumes) to determine the hazards or risks posed by various
designs, environmental factors, etc. It would assist efforts to model and forecast
demand and to determine preferences for and demand impacts of various
improvements. At all levels of policymaking, from local through national, bet-
ter data on system usage would assist policymakers by illustrating overall trends
in usage as well as differences in trends among geographic areas, user charac-
teristics, and so forth.
Field counts and travel surveys both provide a basis for estimating usage, and
each has advantages and disadvantages as discussed in chapter 4. Regardless of
the technique used, an ideal system of usage data collection and reporting
would have the following characteristics:
● The data collection would permit tracking of usage patterns on individual
facilities as well as aggregation of data across an area (e.g., total bicycle-
miles of travel in a city);
● Data would be collected systematically—that is, on an ongoing basis in a
manner in which patterns can be compared over time;
● Data would be collected in a consistent manner across cities, metropoli-
tan areas, etc., so that the data could be aggregated to larger geographic
areas, including nationwide; and
● Data could be broken out by specific factors, such as user characteristics
(age, sex, disabilities, etc.), trip purpose and length, time of day, type of
facility, etc.
While usage data is an overall high priority, the importance of these specific
aspects varies according to the intended use of the data. For some uses, specif-
ic variables or compatibility among areas may be required; for other uses, it
may be more important simply to know overall levels of travel in a particular
geographic area.
Data Needs 47
Data on user preferences, attitudes, and expressed needs of existing and poten-
tial bicyclists and pedestrians appear to be a secondary but still important pri-
ority.1 Fourteen percent of respondents expressed a desire for better data in this
area. Respondents specifically requested data on relative preferences for facility
types, to assist with both facility design and travel modeling; reasons why peo-
ple do not bicycle or walk and what would encourage them to do so; and per-
ceptions of safety and the influence of safety concerns on bicycling or walking.
A fair amount of information on expressed preferences—as gathered from var-
ious local and national surveys—already exists, and has to some extent been
summarized through the National Bicycling and Walking Study. These data
provide a general sense of what factors are important in a person’s decision to
walk or bicycle. Recent research to establish a Bicycle Compatibility Index is
also helping establish relative preferences for specific design features (USDOT
FHWA 1998). Knowledge of user preferences falls short, however, when it
comes to modeling the impacts of specific policies and facility design character-
istics on travel choices. This is because there are many factors that influence
these decisions, and they can interact in complicated ways. Advances in demand
modeling as well as better data to support this modeling are therefore required
to further quantify relative preferences.
Fortunately, a systematic and comprehensive data collection effort on user pref-
erences, similar to a system of tracking usage and crash data, is probably not
necessary. There is strong evidence from travel modeling experience that pref-
erences are to a large extent “transferable” from one area to the next, and that
it is therefore not necessary to perform preference surveys in every city or met-
ropolitan area.
Current challenges are:
● To further disseminate results (including recent surveys and studies) on a
national basis,
● To compare results across geographic areas to determine their transfer-
ability,
● To synthesize results in a manner that is most useful to local practition-
ers, and
● To identify additional research efforts that are required to support specific
purposes such as demand modeling and facility design.
1Note that it is important to know preferences for potential as well as actual bicyclists and pedestri-
ans, therefore the term “user” is applied loosely to indicate all people for whom bicycle and
pedestrian-related policies could potentially impact travel choices.
Targeted research and methodological development is required to quantify the

tradeoffs that people make among various factors in a format that is useful for
behavior modeling across geographic areas. Note that while research studies in
this area may require their own specific data collection, they will also strongly
benefit from the improvement of other pedestrian and bicycle data, including
facility characteristics, travel survey results, and counts.
FACILITIES
Better data on the location, characteristics, and extent of bicycle and pedestri-
an facilities was identified as a need by 15 percent of respondents to the out-
reach effort. As with preferences data, improved data of this type would be
useful but are probably not as high a priority as basic usage data. For local
planning purposes, even if a comprehensive inventory of facilities does not exist
(and therefore total mileage by type, condition, etc., cannot be quantified), any-
one familiar with an area has a general sense of what conditions are like and
where specific problems might exist. It is easier to assess existing facility condi-
tions through observation than to obtain “hard” data such as user counts and
surveys. Local jurisdictions, for example, frequently conduct inventories of
bicycle facilities for the purpose of developing bicycle plans.
Nevertheless, both needs and opportunities exist for improving facilities data.
Better facilities data would appear most useful for local planning efforts. A
number of respondents identified a desire for databases indicating locations and
characteristics of specific facilities. Potential uses include developing compati-
bility ratings and recommended routes, identifying deficiencies, and identifying
and prioritizing improvements. Local data on facility characteristics would also
assist in crash studies and in forecasting travel demand.
A few respondents also identified a desire for aggregate-level reporting of facil-
ities data (e.g., miles of bicycle paths per capita in a city, county, or metropoli-
tan area). Tracking the extent of facilities at the metropolitan, state, and
national levels would be useful in helping planners and policymakers assess the
extent to which adequate facilities are provided.
Particular needs for improving facilities data include:
● Incorporating attributes relevant to bicycle and pedestrian travel (e.g.,
sidewalk and crosswalk locations) into roadway databases;
● Expanding roadway databases to include bicycle- and pedestrian-specific
links, such as off-road trails;
● Incorporating other environmental and land use variables that relate to
the quality of an area for bicycling and/or walking; and
Data Needs 49
● Incorporating data into a geographic information system-based format so

that it can be more easily analyzed, displayed, and linked with other rel-
evant data for analysis.
CRASHES AND SAFETY
Approximately 30 percent of outreach respondents indicated a need for better

data related to crashes and safety, and this appears to be a relatively high pri-
ority. Three specific needs were identified:
● More complete and consistent information on locations and characteris-
tics of reported crashes,
● More comprehensive reporting of nonfatal crashes and nonmotor-vehicle
crashes, and
● Geographic linkage of crash data to facility and usage data.
Most respondents expressed the need for more complete or usable crash data-
bases or for more detailed data on specific crashes. Data were particularly
requested on specific characteristics of crashes relevant to pedestrian and bicy-
cle crash analysis; for example, location relative to a crosswalk or whether the
bicycle was equipped with lights if traveling at night. Improved crash data and
data linkages would assist in crash analysis and the design of countermeasures
(i.e., steps taken to prevent crashes), both in local planning and in larger-scale
research studies.
A number of respondents also expressed the need for better aggregate crash
data, i.e., summary statistics by area, facility type, or crash type. This would
also assist in tracking safety trends at the local, state, and national levels.
SECONDARY DATA
Better secondary data appear to be a relatively high priority for planners, engi-
neers, consultants, and advocates at the local level. Important types of second-
ary data include research results on the safety, demand, and other impacts of
design features and policies; recommended design practices; and model policies
and programs relating to design, education, and promotion.
The safety and user-preference impacts of various design features, especially for
bicycle travel, were identified by about 30 percent of outreach respondents and
appear to be the highest priority need. While recent research has focused on a
number of bicycle and pedestrian design issues, many issues have not been thor-
oughly researched, and evidence on the appropriateness of various treatments
is often conflicting or nonexistent. Furthermore, existing research results may
not be readily available or known to practitioners at the local level. In the

absence of such evidence, planners, engineers, and advocates often find it diffi-
cult to agree on or justify specific design treatments.
The effectiveness of many other policies and actions to support pedestrian and
especially bicycle travel is also not well understood. Some of these issues include
the demand impacts of shower and locker facilities at the workplace; demand
impacts of bicycle parking in commercial areas, and the safety and demand
impacts of educational programs. In the absence of evidence on these effects,
benefits cannot be compared to costs, and planners may find it hard to justify
particular programs or actions.
REFERENCES
Washington, DC.
National Academy of Sciences (NAS), Transportation Research Board (TRB). 1997.
Information Needs to Support State and Local Transportation Decisionmaking
into the 21st Century, Proceedings of a Conference, Irvine, CA, March 25.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Internet: www.bts.gov/needs as of
May 5, 2000.
(BTS). 1998. Transportation Statistics Beyond ISTEA: Critical Gaps and
Strategic Responses, BTS98-A-01. Washington, DC.
U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA). 1998. Development of the Bicycle Compatibility Index: A Level of
Service Concept, Final report, FHWA-RD-98-072. Prepared by Turner-Fairbank
Highway Research Center.
Options for
CHAPTER
Addressing Data
Needs 4
GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS
B y viewing the overall range of data needs and opportunities in per-

spective, perhaps the most important finding emerging from this
study is that opportunities and constraints to improved bicycle and
pedestrian data collection must be investigated in a crosscutting
manner.
Practitioners in a diversity of areas, such as safety research, demand
forecasting, and roadway engineering, may benefit from common
data collection activities. Furthermore, information-based technolo-
gies, including intelligent transportation systems (ITS) and geograph-
ic information systems (GIS), are creating opportunities to improve
the state of transportation data collection and management in gener-
al. At the same time, institutional and financial constraints create bar-
riers to capitalizing on these opportunities. Greater coordination is
required among federal, state, and local transportation planning
agencies to improve the quality of pedestrian and bicycle data.
51
An effort to identify opportunities, constraints, and needed actions might

include a conference or series of workshops that bring together a variety of
important groups. Some key aspects of such an effort would include:
● The full range of users of bicycle and pedestrian data would be brought
together to discuss how data collection efforts could benefit the broadest
number of users. For example, count or survey data could serve as a foun-
dation for tracking usage of specific facilities, estimating overall levels of
system usage, developing measures of exposure for crash analysis, and
developing and calibrating network models. The potential for coordinat-
ing efforts to meet all of these needs should be investigated.
● The discussions would also include those who collect all types of trans-
portation data; for example, representatives of the U.S. Department of
Transportation (USDOT), state DOTs, metropolitan planning organiza-
tions, city and county transportation agencies, hospitals, and police.
Representatives of these agencies could help identify both opportunities
and constraints to improving the collection of bicycle- and pedestrian-
related data.
● Opportunities for improving bicycle and pedestrian data would be viewed
in conjunction with opportunities for and constraints to improving relat-
ed types of general transportation data. For example, computer-based
crash reporting systems have the potential for greatly improving the qual-
ity and usefulness of crash data. Local adoption of these systems is likely
to be driven by their general usefulness for data management rather than
by specific pedestrian and bicycle data opportunities. At the same time,
however, pedestrian and bicycle data users must be involved in the design
of these systems to ensure their maximum utility for pedestrian- and bicy-
cle-crash analysis.
● Needs and opportunities for making databases compatible with each
other would be discussed. For example, GIS can greatly facilitate the
management and analysis of pedestrian- and bicycle-related data. If data
definitions in different sources are not compatible with each other, how-
ever, GIS cannot be utilized to its maximum potential. Other opportuni-
ties for standardizing data and linking databases (e.g., medical records
and crash records) should also be identified.
The outreach effort for this study resulted in additional recommendations
for improving the quality of bicycle and pedestrian data. By far, the most
common recommendation regarding existing data was to make all available
data readily accessible via the Internet. Some respondents specifically sug-
gested that a centralized Internet repository with a searchable database
and/or links to other relevant sources would be useful. Respondents’ sug-
gestions for new data collection generally focused on new technologies, such
Options for Addressing Data Needs 53
as video cameras and GIS, and on alternative survey methodologies. Other

suggestions for better dissemination of data and for new data collection
opportunities are noted in appendix A.
Respondents also provided general suggestions as to how the Bureau of
Transportation Statistics (BTS) and/or other federal agencies could assist
with new data collection efforts. These generally fell under the following
areas:
● Technical assistance, including developing uniform data collection meth-
ods and reporting formats, demonstrating new data collection technolo-
gies, and developing case studies of successful data collection efforts;
● Financial assistance in the form of grants or other funding specifically des-
ignated for data collection;
● Requirements or mandates, such as requiring pedestrian and bicycle data
collection as a part of transportation data collection or transportation
planning efforts that benefit from federal funding; and
● Assistance in coordinating efforts, for example, sponsoring conferences or
working groups, or maintaining contact lists of peer professionals,
resource people, etc.
The remainder of this section discusses specific opportunities for each type
of data, including options for addressing data needs as well as potential
actions that could be taken (especially at the federal level) to advance these
options.

Basic demand or usage indicators may be developed from either systematic
counts or regular travel surveys. Counts provide total numbers of users by
facility, facility type, area, and time and can also be used to estimate total
bicycle- or pedestrian-miles of travel if adequate samples are conducted.
Surveys have the additional potential for tracking usage by characteristics of
the user, trip purpose, and origin/destination. As in standard transportation
practice, the ideal is probably a combination of regular field monitoring to
obtain volume patterns combined with occasional surveys to collect more
detailed data on origin-destination patterns, user characteristics, etc.
Currently, major barriers to gathering better demand/usage data are cost and
effort. Both counts and surveys are extremely labor-intensive, and mechani-
cal counting technology is more difficult to apply to bicycles and pedestrians
than to motorized vehicles. Given limited financial resources and a general
lack of priority assigned to bicycle and pedestrian data, state and local agen-
cies are generally unwilling to allocate sufficient resources to bicycle and
pedestrian data collection.
While applications of new information technology have the potential to

reduce the costs of data collection, particularly for counts, an increase in
both federal and/or local resources will ultimately be required to improve the
quality of data in this area. In addition to simply allocating more resources,
however, a number of actions may be taken at the federal level to better
leverage existing data collection efforts and to increase the capacity of local
agencies to collect additional data. Some recommendations include:
● Develop a “handbook” or manual on basic pedestrian and bicycle char-
acteristics, such as trip-length distributions and typical socioeconomic
and demographic characteristics.1 In addition to the National Personal
Transportation Survey (NPTS), a potentially underexploited source of
such data is existing metropolitan household travel surveys, which could
be analyzed and compared on a nationwide basis.
● Evaluate and promote new bicycle- and pedestrian-counting technologies
(i.e., video imaging, infrared sensors) by synthesizing the results of current
pilot testing efforts, sponsoring additional pilot tests and methodological
development, and conducting outreach efforts to disseminate successful
technologies. Further development and evaluation is required in this area,
and local agencies must be provided with the know-how to adopt and uti-
lize new technology.
● Develop and widely disseminate model surveys and sampling methodolo-
gies for collecting pedestrian- and bicycle-related data. Currently, surveys
and sampling methods that are applied in practice vary significantly in
their quality. Recommended methodologies should be developed and dis-
seminated for both counts and travel surveys. For example, assuming
resources are devoted to systematic bicycle and pedestrian traffic moni-
toring, what would an ideal temporal and spatial coverage of counts look
like? What are recommended methodologies for obtaining representative
pedestrian and bicycle travel survey data?
● Investigate enhancements to household travel surveys, notably inclusion
of purely recreational bicycle and walk trips, as well as techniques to
improve reporting of children’s trips, short walk trips, and walk or bicy-
cle access to other modes of travel. Techniques to minimize underreport-
ing of walk trips have been developed with some success in a few
metropolitan areas and should be adopted on a more widespread basis.
● Evaluate and, if successful, disseminate new technologies to collect travel
survey data, such as personal monitors to measure physical activity levels.
The success of pilot survey applications of global positioning system
1 This need was identified in the development of the Guidebook on Methods to Forecast Bicycle and
Pedestrian Travel (Cambridge Systematics and BFA 1999).
(GPS) units to track trips should also be monitored and potential appli-
cations to monitoring pedestrian and bicycle travel explored.
● Improve the state of the practice in bicycle and pedestrian demand fore-
casting. Data on forecast usage can be at least as important as data on
existing usage for many planning and design applications and for sup-
porting funding allocation decisions. Forecasts may be important in
designing a trail to ensure adequate width, for example, or in planning a
network of routes to maximize usage.

As noted in chapter 2, there are several ways to obtain data on preferences,
needs, and attitudes. Qualitative assessments and attitudinal surveys are less
resource-intensive and may, in many cases, be adequate for planning and
design activities. Stated-preference or revealed-preference analysis can be
used to develop more robust and quantitative information on user prefer-
ences, but these methods are limited by the expense involved in conducting
and analyzing surveys, deficiencies in other data (particularly usage and net-
work characteristics), and modeling limitations.
An additional point is that data on preferences are to a large extent trans-
ferable from one area to another and, therefore, local data collection efforts
may not be required everywhere as they are for usage, facilities, and crash
data. Calibration across localities for differences in socioeconomic level,
land use, climate, and other factors may be necessary. With these points in
mind, the following actions could be taken to improve data on preferences,
needs, and attitudes:
● Synthesize existing knowledge on preferences, needs, and attitudes. Such
a synthesis was written in 1991 as part of the National Bicycling and
Walking Study, but regular updates would be useful. One component of
this effort should investigate the potential for using existing quantitative
preference data in models to predict pedestrian and bicycle travel choices.
● Develop survey questions regarding conditions and preferences for bicy-
cling and walking that could be added to existing metropolitan household
travel surveys, the NPTS, or other market surveys.
● Develop model surveys and sampling methodologies. As with travel sur-
veys, a variety of surveys and sampling methods are applied in practice,
with varying levels of quality.
Box 4-1 FACILITIES

Portland, Oregon, Pedestrian Potential
and Deficiency Indices Emerging information technology is
providing new opportunities for main-
The city of Portland, Oregon, assembled data from taining more useful databases on trans-
a variety of sources into a common geographic portation facilities. Geographic
information system (GIS) environment to develop information systems provide the ability
and map a “Pedestrian Potential Index” and a to store geographically referenced data
“Deficiency Index.” These indices were then com- in a format that is easy to analyze, dis-
bined to identify areas of both high potential and play, and link with other databases (e.g.,
high deficiency, so that these areas could be tar- crash records, population and land-use
geted for improvements. data) for analysis (see box 4-1). Most
The Pedestrian Potential Index is based on a variety
state and local transportation agencies
of factors, including adopted street and neighbor- have adopted or are adopting GIS to
hood classifications (e.g., pedestrian district, town store and manage facilities-related data.
center); proximity to schools, transit stops, public Many are integrating facilities data with
parks, and pedestrian-friendly commercial zoning; other transportation-related data to
and the likelihood of short trips being made by varying degrees, for example, through
walking, based on analysis of metropolitan house- the development of Transportation
hold travel survey data. Management Systems. These efforts can
involve substantial initial investments,
The Deficiency Index is developed by combining but can also have significant payoffs in
rankings for six factors: sidewalk deficiency, crash the long run.
locations, traffic speed, traffic volume, street width,
and length of street block. Sidewalk deficiency is While GIS and other new technologies
based on the continuity of sidewalks, as deter- can make it easier to update and main-
mined by field surveys. Pedestrian crash locations tain facilities databases, it is important
were determined from city accident databases. to note that GIS cannot collect data.
Traffic speeds and volumes were identified at avail- Resources must still be devoted to com-
able count locations. Roadway widths and segment piling relevant data and updating it on a
lengths were also identified from city GIS databas- regular basis. Communication and coor-
es of roadway facilities.
dination among agencies with varied
The city’s analysis illustrates how GIS tools can be responsibilities are also required.
used to manage and display existing data from var- Some recommendations to improve the
ious sources, as well as newly collected data, in a quality of data on bicycle and pedestrian
common environment. The analysis further illus- facilities include:
trates how these sources can be used to identify
areas in which improvements to the pedestrian ● Standardizing data formats and defi-
environment are required. nitions where appropriate in order to
facilitate use in other applications
SOURCE: City of Portland, OR, Office of Transportation, Iden-
tifying Priorities for Pedestrian Transportation Improvements,
(crash analysis, network models,
Pedestrian Master Plan Project Development: Final Report, etc.), and promote data comparabili-
June 30, 1997. ty among jurisdictions and geograph-
ic areas. Facilities data will be most
useful if they are developed in a geographically referenced format that can

be easily linked with socioeconomic and demographic data and crash
databases, and if they contain attributes that can be incorporated in trans-
portation model networks for demand forecasting.
● Facilitate discussions among various data user groups to identify key net-
work characteristics relevant to bicycle and pedestrian planning, and pro-
vide guidance to state and local agencies responsible for collecting and
maintaining transportation data. Given that resources for data collection
are limited, it may be helpful for users to agree on a set of common char-
acteristics that are of interest and that can realistically be monitored with-
in data collection budgets. In addition to incorporating attributes relevant
to bicycle and pedestrian travel (e.g., presence of bike lanes or cross-
walks), facilities databases should also contain bicycle- and pedestrian-
specific links, such as off-road trails and pedestrian bridges, that do not
appear in standard roadway databases. Coordination among state and
local agencies is also important because planning practices and desired
data may differ from area to area.
● Investigate new technologies for data collection and disseminate success-
ful applications. Analysis of aerial photographs has been used in
Portland, OR, for example, to develop pedestrian environment factors for
individual traffic analysis zones.
CRASHES AND SAFETY

The quality of pedestrian and bicycle crash data is dependent on the quality
and characteristics of local crash reporting systems as well as local, state, and
national crash data management systems. Most of the limitations of existing
crash databases and data management apply to all modes of transportation
and are not unique to pedestrian and bicycle crashes. Highway and road
safety analysis receives considerable attention, and problems such as report-
ing of nonfatal accidents and a lack of good injury data are widely recog-
nized. As with other types of pedestrian and bicycle data, recommendations
to improve the quality of data must take into consideration current oppor-
tunities and constraints in the broader area. See, for example, the discussion
of how new technology can help overcome institutional obstacles to
improved crash records processing (Miller 1997).
Also, as with other data, emerging information technology offers potential
solutions to many existing problems, for example:
● Computer-based crash reporting systems have the potential to allow
detailed and specialized crash reporting. These systems are in various lev-
els of adoption by police departments across the country. They can also
permit the transfer of crash data into central databases, eliminating the
need for manual data entry. As a result, data on all reported crashes can
be made readily available for analysis.
● Geographic information systems are facilitating the management, display,
and linkage of data. GIS will assist researchers and planners in linking
data to facility and environmental databases, and will assist lay people
through its capabilities of visually displaying information. GIS-based sys-
tems for maintaining crash records, facility information, and other data
are in various levels of implementation by states, metropolitan agencies,
and local jurisdictions.
● Global positioning systems are permitting the recording of precise crash
locations.
● National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is undertaking
efforts to link crash and medical records databases in some states. Use of
these data for bicycle and pedestrian crash analysis, however, will require
funding of specific research studies.
● NHTSA is also developing crash-typing software. The Pedestrian and
Bicycle Crash Analysis Tool (PBCAT) helps users create a database of
their pedestrian and bicycle crashes from hardcopy accident reports, helps
users capture detail on roadway and environmental conditions at the time
of the crash, types/categorizes the crashes, helps users produce some basic
tables and graphs, and links the crash types to some countermeasures.
In implementing new technologies for crash reporting, analysis, and data
management, consideration should be given to specific needs for bicycle and
pedestrian crash reporting. The potential of computer-based crash reporting
systems, for example, should be leveraged for bicycle and pedestrian crash
analysis through the development of expert systems to guide data entry.
Expert systems can request specific information keyed to the nature of the
crash. For example, if a bicyclist were involved, the computer would prompt
to determine whether or not the bicyclist was wearing a helmet.
Some specific recommendations to improve pedestrian and bicycle crash
data include:
● Build a consensus on characteristics that are important to record in
reporting crashes involving bicyclists and pedestrians; incorporate these
characteristics in standards for computer-based reporting systems. Crash
reporting systems should be designed with input from bicycle and pedes-
trian safety researchers to include important information relevant to bicy-
cle and pedestrian crash analysis. To maximize its usefulness, a standard
system should be adopted throughout the country so that comparable

2
data are available on crashes in all areas.
● Investigate opportunities provided by GIS and GPS for identifying and
documenting the precise location of crashes, and investigate how this data
should be reported and managed.
● Investigate methods to achieve more thorough reporting of injury crashes
as well as reporting of nonmotor vehicle crashes and incidents. While
there is no known way of assuring the comprehensive and systematic
reporting of crashes that fall beneath state-specified damage value thresh-
olds, opportunities may exist for obtaining better samples of data.
Examples may include examination of medical records or self-reporting of
incidents on surveys of bicyclists or pedestrians.3 (Moritz 1997)
● Investigate the potential of utilizing existing linked crash and medical
record databases for pedestrian and bicycle crash research.
● Continue to include safety researchers in initiatives to improve usage-data
collection, so that usage data provide the most useful measures of expo-
sure for crash investigation. Aggregate exposure statistics should be com-
patible with aggregate crash statistics; for example, facility types or user
characteristics should have consistent definitions. Facility definitions for
both exposure and crash data on specific facilities should also be com-
patible (e.g., for pedestrian crash analysis, pedestrian volumes on a spe-
cific crosswalk may be important.)
SECONDARY DATA
Needs for secondary data may be addressed through more widespread dis-
semination of existing research results; through additional research on
design features, policies, etc. that have not been fully studied; and through
the development and dissemination of recommended practices as well as case
studies of successful programs and applications. Some specific recommenda-
tions include:
● Continue to improve the availability of existing research. The National
Transportation Library, the National Bicycling and Walking Study, and
the Bicycle and Pedestrian Clearinghouse have all made strides in this
direction and the Internet provides excellent new opportunities in this
2 Richard Blomberg of the Transportation Research Board Pedestrian Committee has been investigat-
ing opportunities and constraints to the adoption of new reporting systems. Involvement by the
NHTSA may be helpful in promoting widespread agreement on and adoption of such systems.
3 Self-reporting through surveys has previously been used to estimate the frequency and types of non-
motor-vehicle crashes and incidents (Moritz 1997).
area. A forthcoming NHTSA bibliography on bicycle safety research will

help. Additional bibliographies on other bicycle and pedestrian research
topics—for example, international safety research—would also be useful.
● Prioritize, fund, and promote research to fill in knowledge gaps. It is
beyond the scope of this assessment to make a comprehensive inventory
of bicycle- and pedestrian-related research needs, although some priorities
(particularly for bicycle-related research) emerged from the outreach
effort. Some recent assessments of research needs, however, have come
from the following sources:
The Transportation Research Board Bicycle and Pedestrian Com-
mittees regularly solicit and prioritize research problem statements,
although there is no dedicated funding source to carry out this
research;
NHTSA is currently producing a compendium of the agency’s bicycle-
related research that will help identify areas in which research is lack-
ing; and
A recent Federal Highway Administration report on bicycle and pedes-
trian demand forecasting methods identified research needs to support
forecasting.
● Continue to assess research findings and inpractice experience to update
recommended practices. The need for recommended practices is being
addressed to some extent through the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials’ recently released revision of its
design guidelines for bicycle facilities. It is important in the future, how-
ever, to update these recommended practices on a regular basis to ensure
that new research is considered and that new techniques are included. A
few cities in the United States, for example, are experimenting with bicy-
cle facility design techniques borrowed from Europe; to the extent that
these prove successful, it may be desirable to include them as recom-
mended practices for certain situations.
REFERENCES
Washington, DC.
Miller, J.S. 1997. Using Technology to Help Overcome Institutional Obstacles to
Improved Crash Records Processing. Transportation Research Record 1581.
Moritz, W.E. 1997. A Survey of North American Bicycle Commuters: Design and
Aggregate Results, presented at the Transportation Research Board Annual
Meeting, Paper No. 970979. Washington, DC.
Results of Outreach
APPENDIX
Effort
A
METHODOLOGY
T o help identify bicycle and pedestrian data needs, a brief ques-

tionnaire was emailed to over 60 people identified as active in the
fields of planning, research, or advocacy for bicyclists and/or pedes-
trians. In particular, those targeted were:
● Representatives of key federal organizations and national advo-
cacy groups;
● University researchers and consultants who recently conducted
research related to bicycle and pedestrian planning or safety; and
● Local planners and advocates active in professional activities, such
as conferences and committees, at a national level.
Names were identified through:
● Transportation Research Board bicycle and pedestrian committee
lists;
● Published research and literature;
● Contacts made at conferences;
● Contacts made through previous research by the report authors;
and
● Suggestions from others.
61
Table A-1
Email Listservs Contacted
Listserv name Listserv address

Department of Transportation Listserv dot@listserv.nodak.edu
Institute of Transportation Engineers Discussion itetraffic@lists.io.com
ITE Transportation Planning Discussion ite_trans_planning@lists.io.com
ITE Safety Discussion itesafety@lists.io.com
Travel Model Improvement Program (TMIP) Listserv tmip@list.bts.gov
Transportation Infrastructure Affecting Cycling facilities-n-planning@cycling.org
Pedestrian Discussion Group pednet@flora.ottawa.on.ca
State Bicycle & Pedestrian Coordinators bfa-stcoords@igc.org
Association of Pedestrian & Bicycle Professionals apbp@smoke.suba.com
Physical Activity Listserv phys-act@vm.sc.edu
In addition, to obtain broad coverage (in particular of local planners and advo-
cates), the questionnaire was sent to 10 email listservs (see table A-1).
The questionnaire was not intended to yield a random or representative sample
of responses. Rather, it was viewed as a low-cost means of giving as many peo-
ple as possible the opportunity to respond and provide feedback. In conjunc-
tion with the other sources used for this study, it helps provide a picture of the
most pressing data needs for various types of activities.
RESPONSES
Responses were obtained from 78 individuals. Most responses were received by

email, although a few were sent as hard copy and a few were obtained through
telephone conversations. The responses were entered into a Microsoft Access
database and tabulated. Responses were received from a nonrandom cross-sec-
tion of national, state, metropolitan, and local sources (figure A-1). Over two-
thirds represented either government agencies or advocacy groups, while most
of the rest represented universities or consulting firms (figure A-2). Responses
by type of respondent are shown in table A-2. The groups most commonly rep-
resented included:
● State bicycle and pedestrian coordinators (8);
● Metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), city planners, and county
planners (16);
● Local advocacy groups or individual advocates (17);
Results of Outreach Effort 63
● Researchers (10); and Figure A-1

Responses by Scope of Activity
● Public health and physical activity plan-
ners (10).
Metropolitan
11%
EXISTING DATA Local
43%
The phrasing of the question, “What data
National/
sources do you rely upon?” left it to the unaffiliated
respondent to interpret what was meant by 21%
“data source.” As a result, some people cited
specific types of data (travel survey, counts,
etc.) while others cited sources of data
(Department of Transportation (DOT) publi-
cation, state agency, and so forth).
Table A-3 identifies the most commonly cited
State
types of data. For information on user and 25%
trip characteristics, the U.S. Census Bureau
was the most commonly cited source (seven
citations); the Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey (NPTS) and metro-
politan household travel surveys also received four citations each. Frequently
cited local sources included bicycle and/or pedestrian counts (seven) and user
surveys of attitudes, preferences, habits, etc. (five). For facilities data, six
respondents cited state or local facility inventories or traffic counts. For crash
data, a number of respondents cited state
or local crash databases (12), with a few Figure A-2
(3) citing national crash databases main- Responses by Type of Organization
tained by National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA). Other/
none
9%
Table A-4 identifies sources of data cited
by respondents. The most commonly cited Consulting
9%
sources included a state agency, usually a
state DOT (13); U.S. DOT publications
(10); primary data collection (10); pub-
lished research (6); national public health University
12%
agencies (6); and engineering manuals of
practice (5). A number of respondents (11)
also cited a variety of informal sources,
such as magazines, newsletters, Internet
discussion groups, and personal communi-
cation. Advocacy Government
25% 45%
DATA NEEDS
Table A-2
Survey Responses by Type of Respondent The outreach effort conducted for this
project asked the following questions to
Type of respondent Responses ascertain data needs:
Project/system planning
State (bike/pedestrian coordinator) 8
● What types of data would be most
Metro (metropolitan planning useful to you but are not available?
organization) 8
● How would these data be useful?
Local government 8
Consulting 5 Responses were categorized according to
Subtotal 29
Advocacy
the type of data mentioned. Response fre-
National 3 quencies are shown in table A-5. Since the
State/local 17 responses do not represent a random
Subtotal 20 sample of bicycle and pedestrian plan-
Research ners, researchers, and advocates, the fre-
Safety/design 6 quency of responses should not be viewed
System planning/demand analysis 3
Health/physical activity 1
as a prioritization. In particular, most
Subtotal 10 responses came from planners and advo-
Health/physical activity cates at the state and local level. The
State department of health 7 results are generally consistent, however,
Other 3 with data needs identified through other
Subtotal 10 forums by researchers and by national-
Other/unknown 9
Total 78
level planners, policymakers, and advo-
cates. Results are discussed according to
the major categories of identified data
needs as shown in table A-5.
Usage, Trip, and User Characteristics
Nearly 40 percent of survey respondents identified a need for better data on sys-
tem usage and user characteristics. As discussed above, the most widely
accessed sources of these data are the decennial census, the NPTS, and metro-
politan household travel surveys. Other counts and surveys are conducted spo-
radically in particular areas or nationwide. The most frequently mentioned
needs include:
● Demand/usage indicators. Sixteen respondents expressed the need for bet-
ter indicators of system usage. Such indicators might include total bicy-
cling or walking trips, numbers of people who bicycle or walk, mode
shares, and miles of travel by nonmotorized modes. The need for such
indicators was expressed primarily at a local level (city, county, or metro-
politan area) but also at the state and national geographic scales. Reasons
for wanting these data include tracking trends, determining the effective-
ness of policies and programs, and justifying Table A-3

programs and funding by demonstrating sys- Types of Existing Data Cited
tem use. This is an “aggregate” or summary-
level category of data, although it may be
Type of data Responses
developed from the same disaggregate
Census 7
sources as described below.
Nationwide Personal
● Trip and user characteristics. Fourteen Transportation Survey 4
respondents indicated a desire for better pro- Local household travel surveys 4
files of bicycle and pedestrian trips and trav- Local attitude/use surveys 5
elers. These include distributions of trips by Local bike/pedestrian counts 7
distance, purpose, and time of day; distribu- State/local facility inventories 4
tions of travelers and trips according to National crash databases 3
demographic and socioeconomic characteris- State, local crash databases 12
tics; and various cross-classifications of these National Center for
Health Statistics 6
variables. In other words, people want to
know “who is traveling where, when, why,
and how.” This type of data is traditionally collected through household
travel surveys, but as discussed above, most travel surveys contain inade-
quate data on bicycle and pedestrian trips. Most of these respondents
expressed a desire for profile (i.e., aggregate-level) data on trips and trav-
elers at the community or metropolitan area level. Such data might be
obtained through improvements to standard household travel surveys or
through travel surveys targeted specifically at bicyclists and pedestrians.
A few respondents also identified a desire for better national-level pro-
files, as might be obtained through refine-
ments to the NPTS or a national survey Table A-4
targeted specifically at bicyclists or pedestri- Sources of Existing Data Cited
ans.
Four respondents in this category specifical- Sources of data Responses
ly expressed a need for better travel survey State agency (DOT, DOH, other) 13
data to support demand modeling. The Magazines, newsletters,
Internet discussion 11
improvements needed to make survey data U.S. DOT publications 10
more useful for modeling would be similar Primary data collection 10
to those required to develop better summa- CDC, NIH 6
ry statistics on travel characteristics. Finally, Published research 6
five respondents specifically expressed a Engineering manuals of practice 5
need for better data on travel patterns of Local recreation or advocacy groups 4
MPO or city staff 3
children and/or school trips.
KEY: CDC = Centers for Disease Control and
● Facility counts/volumes. Eight respondents Prevention; DOH = Department of Health;
mentioned a need for more and better DOT = Department of Transportation; MPO =
bicycle and/or pedestrian count data. This metropolitan planning organization; NIH =
National Institutes of Health.
type of data is similar to “demand/usage
Table A-5
Outreach Effort: Summary of Identified Data Needs
Type of data Total Percent

Primary data
Usage, trip, and user characteristics 34 43
Demand/usage indicators (total, mode shares) 16 20
Trip and user characteristics (frequency,
distance, destination, purpose, age, gender, etc.) 14 18
Counts/volumes on specific facilities 8 10
Exposure data (to relate to crash data) 7 9
Travel patterns of children, school trips 5 6
Trip generation rates 5 6
Household survey data/inputs to
forecasting models 4 5
Bicycles in use/owned 3 4
Helmet usage 3 4
Preferences, needs, and attitudes 11 14
Descriptive data 8 10
For input to forecasting models 3 4
Facilities 12 15
Databases/inventories 8 10
Summary statistics/benchmarks 4 5
Ancillary facilities (showers, parking, etc.) 3 4
Crashes 23 29
Crash databases: 17 22
Location, characteristics, contributing factors 14 18
Nonmotor vehicle crashes 4 5
Nonfatality crashes/injury data 3 4
Links to other data (facilities, exposure, injury) 3 4
Summary crash data: 7 9
Contributing factors/causes 3 4
General crash data (crashes, crash rates) 2 3
Nonfatality crashes 1 1
Nonmotor-vehicle crashes 1 1
Bicyclist violations of motor vehicle code 1 1
Crime on trails 1 1
Secondary data
Facility design 22 28
Safety impacts 13 16
Demand impacts 7 9
Recommended practices 4 5
Costing data for planning 2 3
Effects on motorist behavior and attitudes 1 1
Policies and programs 10 13
Recommended/model practices 6 8
Benefits of various policies/programs 3 4
Safety impacts 3 4
Demand impacts 1 1
indicators,” but with the difference that the data are desired for specific
facilities rather than for an area as a whole. Counts, if performed in a sys-
tematic manner at an adequate sample of locations, can provide a basis
for estimating aggregate usage and tracking trends in usage; developing
exposure measures for crash analysis; and calibrating travel models. They
can also directly assist planning activities such as designing adequate facil-
ities to accommodate traffic and prioritizing facilities for improvement.
● Exposure data. Seven respondents specifically indicated a need for “expo-
sure” data. Exposure data are similar to usage indicators in that they
quantify trips, miles of travel, etc. An additional purpose of exposure
data, however, is to develop crash rates or risk measures (e.g., crashes per
bicycle-mile of travel). As a result, data used to develop exposure meas-
ures may have more specific requirements than data that are collected just
to determine levels and trends in system usage. It may be desirable, for
example, to collect exposure data by facility type, time of day, bicyclist
experience level, or any other measure that is important in classifying and
analyzing crashes.
● Trip generation data. Five respondents (all consultants) identified the
need for bicycle trip generation data by type of land use. Automobile trip
generation rates, expressed in terms of trips per thousand square feet or
another measure of the size of development, are widely used in trans-
portation planning. They are developed by regressing traffic counts
against size of development and other related measures, based on surveys
at various locations, and are reported in the Institute of Transportation
Engineers’ Trip Generation. Consultants who work with such data would
clearly appreciate similar data for bicyclists.
● Other usage-related data. Other desired data related to system usage
include bicycles in use or owned (three respondents) and helmet usage
(three respondents).
Preferences, Needs, and Attitudes
A total of 11 respondents expressed a desire for better data on preferences,

expressed needs, and attitudes of existing and potential bicyclists and pedestri-
ans. Preference data can assist in designing facilities, policies, and programs to
have the greatest benefit to users and the greatest impact on attracting new bicy-
clists and pedestrian trips. Respondents specifically requested data on relative
preferences for facility types, to assist with both facility design and travel mod-
eling; reasons why people do not bicycle or walk and what would encourage
them to do so; and perceptions of safety and the influence of safety concerns on
bicycling or walking. Three of these respondents specifically indicated a need
for preference data that could be used in demand modeling.
Facilities
Twelve respondents identified a need for better data on bicycle and pedestrian
facilities. Two-thirds of these identified a need for databases indicating locations
and characteristics of specific facilities, that is, “disaggregate” facility data.
Desired data include not only the presence and characteristics of bicycle and
pedestrian facilities, but other relevant characteristics such as roadway lane
widths and traffic volumes. A number of respondents noted that having these
data in Geographic Information System (GIS) format would be of great help in
planning and analysis.
Better facilities data would primarily be useful in local planning activities,
including developing compatibility ratings and recommended routes, identify-
ing deficiencies, and identifying and prioritizing improvements. Some respon-
dents also expressed a desire for facilities data in a format that can be related to
other datasets, such as travel volumes and crashes.
In addition to facility databases, four respondents noted that it would be useful
to have summary statistics of miles of bicycle lanes, sidewalks, etc. The purpose
of having these data would be to measure progress in providing facilities and to
set “benchmarks,” for example, an actual versus desired ratio of bike lane-miles
per capita or per road-mile.
Three respondents noted that it would also be useful to have either general
inventories or know the specific locations of ancillary facilities, including bicy-
cle parking and shower/locker facilities at workplaces.
Crashes
A total of 23 respondents indicated the need for better data on crashes.

Seventeen of these respondents expressed the need for more complete or usable
crash databases or for more detailed data on specific crashes. These disaggre-
gate crash data (databases of individual crash records) are used by researchers
in crash analysis as well as by planners in identifying hazard locations, crash
causes, and countermeasures. In addition, seven of the respondents expressed
the need for better aggregate crash data, that is, summary statistics by area,
facility type, or crash type. Aggregate data can be useful both for tracking
trends and for identifying areas in which improvement is needed. Some specif-
ic needs for improved crash data include:
● Locations and causes of crashes. A number of respondents were interest-
ed in knowing the locations and causes of crashes for planning purposes,
and indicated that data in GIS format would be particularly useful for
matching with facilities data. The quality of data on crash locations varies
locally and by state, so some respondents might have access to high-
quality data while others might not. Some jurisdictions, for example, have
developed GIS-based crash databases, but this technology has not yet
been adopted throughout the country. The ease with which crash data can
be obtained from the responsible agency can also vary locally.
● Crash characteristics and contributing factors. A number of respondents
also indicated a need for additional and better quality data collection on
crash characteristics and contributing factors. These data would help
inform crash analysis and countermeasure development. Specific areas in
which better data are needed include environmental variables such as
roadway geometrics and visibility impairments; characteristics of those
involved such as demographics, helmet use, light use, and bicyclist skill
level; and other potential causal or contributing factors.
● Specific types of crashes. Some respondents also noted specific types of
crashes for which data are particularly lacking. While the Fatal Accident
Reporting System (FARS) provides a comprehensive inventory of fatali-
ties, injury databases may not be comprehensive, and as the severity of the
crash decreases the quality of the data and likelihood of reporting also
decreases. Furthermore, a general lack of data on crashes or incidents that
do not involve motor vehicles was noted. These might include, for exam-
ple, bicycle-pedestrian collisions or single-bicycle incidents. Data of this
type, in addition to tracking trends, would be useful in analyzing the safe-
ty impacts of various facility designs or specific facilities.
● Injuries and outcomes. Two respondents noted the need for better data on
injuries and medical outcomes of crashes. Currently, injury severity is
coded by an often untrained crash witness. Better data on injury types,
severity, and costs can assist in analyzing the full costs of various types of
crashes, designing appropriate countermeasures, and prioritizing specific
sites or crash types for countermeasures.
● Summary data. Seven respondents indicated a desire for better summary-
level data on crashes. Specific requests were for better reporting of con-
tributing factors and causes of bicycle and pedestrian crashes; more
complete reporting of nonfatality and nonmotor-vehicle crashes; bicyclist
violations of the motor vehicle code; and crime on trails.
Secondary Data
The data needs discussed above all involve the collection, dissemination, and/or
summary analysis of primary data. Over one-third of survey respondents, how-
ever, also interpreted “data” to mean secondary data sources, such as results of
research studies and recommended practices. Respondents involved in local
planning and facility design rely heavily on these data to assist in choosing
appropriate design treatments and recommending policy actions. The results

are summarized here under two categories: 1) facility design and 2) policies and
programs.
● Facility design. Twenty-two respondents indicated a desire for data and
recommendations to help inform the design of facilities. Over half
requested evidence on the safety impacts of various design features, while
one-third wanted data on the demand impacts of design features.
Similarly, four requested recommended practices (such as would be found
in a design manual), while two requested costing data for various facility
types, for planning purposes.
The most frequently mentioned design issue of interest was the demand
and safety effects of various bicycle facility designs (bike paths, bike lanes,
wide curb lanes, lane widths, and other design alternatives). Other specif-
ic design features for which better information was requested include con-
tra-flow lanes, intersection treatments, rumble strips, angled parking,
mid-block pedestrian crossings, pedestrian overpasses, traffic calming,
and mixed-use and “pedestrian-friendly” neighborhoods.
● Policies and programs. Ten respondents requested information to support
the development of policies and programs, including education programs,
promotional efforts, and city-wide “bicycle-friendly” or “pedestrian-
friendly” policies. As with facility design, some respondents were inter-
ested in the safety, demand, and other impacts of these programs. Others
were interested in learning about recommended or “model” programs
that have been demonstrated to be effective in other areas.
OPTIONS FOR ADDRESSING DATA NEEDS
In addition to asking about existing sources and data needs, the outreach effort
conducted for this project also asked respondents whether they had any sug-
gestions for:
● More effective dissemination and utilization of existing data sources,
● Cost-effective ways of collecting new data (enhancement of existing sur-
veys, use of advanced surveillance technologies, etc.), and
● Assistance activities that would help encourage and facilitate the collec-
tion of local data.
Responses are summarized below.
Better Use of Existing Data
Half of the survey respondents provided suggestions for making better use of
existing data. Not surprisingly for a survey conducted primarily by email, the
vast majority of these respondents commented that all available data should be
made readily accessible via the Internet. (While use of the Internet is not yet
ubiquitous, one respondent commented that “Almost all of us who do bike
planning for a living are online and in contact with each other.”) A few respon-
dents specifically suggested that a centralized, searchable database would be
useful, as would links to related sites with relevant data such as NHTSA and
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). A few respondents also
noted existing good examples of data dissemination, including the Bureau of
Transportation Statistics’ (BTS’) National Transportation Library and the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Bicycle/Pedestrian Clearinghouse,
and suggested expanding these applications.
Five respondents noted a general need for better awareness of existing data,
where to obtain it, and how to use it.
Other suggestions for collecting and disseminating existing data included:
1. Use of existing publications, such as American Planning Association
newsletters and the Institute of Transportation Engineer’s Trip
Generation;
2. Collection and dissemination of local data and survey results through
state bicycle and pedestrian coordinators or other state-level staff;
3. Dissemination through other groups, such as the National Bicycle Safety
Network and state departments of health;
4. Additional analysis and publication of summary-level bicycle- and pedes-
trian-related crash data, using existing national and state databases;
5. More widespread publication and presentation of bicycle- and pedestrian-
related research;
6. Maintaining contact lists of local governments and advocacy groups who
are working to improve bicycle and pedestrian conditions; and
7. Sponsorship of a conference on bicycle and pedestrian site design issues,
including case studies, in conjunction with developers.
Collection of New Data
A number of respondents also provided suggested methods for collecting addi-

tional data. Suggestions generally fell into two categories: 1) use of new tech-
nologies and 2) improved surveying and sampling methods. Suggestions for use
of new technologies included:
● Video monitoring for bicycle and pedestrian counts—including both new
monitoring systems and use of existing systems established for traffic or
street security monitoring;
● Infrared sensors;
● Dataloggers that are placed on a person and measure physical and envi-
ronmental variables;
● Use of GPS for pedestrian trip tracking; and
● Laptop-based crash reporting systems.
Suggestions for conducting or expanding surveys included:
● Addition of questions to the NPTS;
● Addition of questions to health surveys, including the Behavioral Risk
Factor Surveillance System and the Youth Risk Factor Survey;
● Distribution of surveys at bicycle shops and pedestrian trip generators,
such as schools and shopping malls;
● Surveys of people accessing mass transit;
● Surveys using the Internet or newspapers; and
● Use of local bicycle groups to identify problem areas.
Assistance with Data Collection
Respondents’ suggestions for how the BTS or other federal agencies could assist
with data collection generally fell into three categories: technical assistance,
financial assistance, and regulations/ mandates.
● Technical assistance. Seven respondents identified the need for technical
assistance, specifically:
- Developing uniform data collection methodology, reporting for-
mats, and analysis methods;
- Demonstrating, evaluating, and testing new data collection tech-
nologies; and
- Developing case studies of successsful data collection efforts.
● Financial assistance. Eleven respondents noted a shortage of local
resources for data collection and suggested that financial assistance would
be helpful in the form of grants or other funding specifically designated

for data collection. One respondent also suggested funding bicycle and
pedestrian research studies at the local level. Another suggested enlisting
local advocacy, religious, and community groups to provide volunteer
assistance with counts.
● Requirements/mandates. Seven respondents suggested that bicycle and
pedestrian data collection be required as a part of transportation data
collection or transportation planning efforts that benefit from federal
funding. One respondent suggested that state DOTs be required to work
with state departments of health.
● Assistance in coordinating efforts. Suggestions in this area included main-
taining a database of bicycle advocates and planners, and assisting in
coordination among groups (e.g., between local government staff and a
university to coordinate research).
Other Recent
APPENDIX
Assessments of Data
Needs B
T his project also reviewed the results of other recent assessments of
bicycle and pedestrian data needs. These include:
● A 1997 conference sponsored by the Bureau of Transportation
Statistics (BTS) in Irvine, California, to identify transportation-
related information needs, including bicycle and pedestrian data;
● The BTS’ Transportation Statistics Beyond ISTEA: Critical Gaps and
Strategic Responses, an assessment of needs for transportation statis-
tics; and
● A Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)-sponsored guidebook
on methods for forecasting bicycle and pedestrian travel.
To a large extent, the recommendations from these efforts corroborate
the results of the outreach effort conducted for this project. Key findings
are summarized below.
IRVINE CONFERENCE
In March 1997, the BTS cosponsored a conference in Irvine, California,

entitled “Information Needs to Support State and Local Transportation
Decisionmaking into the 21st Century.” The conference resulted in a
number of recommendations relevant to bicycle and pedestrian data,
notably:
75
● Development of a nationwide transportation facility and service database,

including bicycle and pedestrian facilities, with accuracy to scale maps of
1:100,000 or less;
● Better trip data, including origin-destination data at a greater level of tem-
poral and spatial detail; trip chaining; and multiple modes;
● Better information on user behavior and characteristics;
● Linkage of system data with data on system use and surroundings;
● Effects of transportation systems management (TSM) and travel demand
management (TDM) strategies on system use and characteristics; and
● Customer satisfaction and user perceptions of performance.
BUREAU OF TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS ASSESSMENT
In 1998, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics published an assessment of

needs for transportation statistics (USDOT BTS 1998). While the focus was not
specifically on bicycle and pedestrian data, the document did identify a number
of bicycle- and pedestrian-related data needs. These include:
● Passenger travel for disadvantaged people, including low-income families
without cars;
● Exposure measures for bicycling and walking, especially for children and the
elderly;
● Underreporting of bicycle and walk trips in national travel surveys;
● Locations and attributes of crashes, especially nonfatal crashes;
● Incidents not involving motor vehicles; and
● Standardization and integration of geographically based data.
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN DEMAND FORECASTING GUIDEBOOK
FHWA recently developed a guidebook on methods of forecasting bicycle and

pedestrian travel (Cambridge Systematics and BFA 1999). While the focus of
the guidebook is on methodologies, a number of critical data gaps were identi-
fied that inhibit demand forecasting. These include:
● Data on bicycle and pedestrian trip patterns at the local level (nonmotorized
sample sizes in household travel surveys are generally insufficient for fore-
casting purposes);
Appendix B 77
● Facility-level data—for example, the locations and characteristics of bicycle

and pedestrian facilities—for use in transportation network databases used
for modeling;
● Environmental data in land use databases; for example, descriptors of the
quality of the pedestrian environment or the mix of land uses in an area; and
● Preferences for various mode, route, etc. attributes in a format that can be
used in demand modeling.
REFERENCES
for the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration,
Washington, DC.
(BTS). 1998. Transportation Statistics Beyond ISTEA: Critical Gaps and
Strategic Responses, BTS98-A-01. Washington, DC.

Us - Dot - Bureau of Transportation Statistics - Us - Dot - Bureau of Transportation Statistics - Bicycle and Pedestrian Data - Sources, Needs, and Gaps - Entire

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Us - Dot - Bureau of Transportation Statistics - Us - Dot - Bureau of Transportation Statistics - Bicycle and Pedestrian Data - Sources, Needs, and Gaps - Entire

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

All material contained in this report is in the

U.S. Department of Transportation Report prepared for BTS by:

BTS Project Manager

Rick Kowalewski Contributors

BTS Mission and Vision

Our vision for the future: Data and information

2 EXISTING DATA SOURCES ......................................................................11

3 DATA NEEDS ........................................................................................43

4 OPTIONS FOR ADDRESSING DATA NEEDS ..........................................51

A Results of Outreach Effort ..........................................................................61

B Other Recent Assessments of Data Needs ..................................................75

T he potential of pedestrian and bicycle travel to provide mobility,

As an initial step towards enhancing bicycle and pedestrian data qual-

● First, to provide an inventory of existing sources of bicycle and

● Second, to identify and prioritize areas in which additional or

● Third, to identify and recommend opportunities for improving the

● Importance of the data for its intended application(s) and audience(s);

● Quality of existing data; and

● Usefulness of the data for a range of applications (facility design, trend

The identified priorities are shown in table 1.

Usage, trip, and user characteristics

Crash and safety data

● Include in this discussion those who collect all types of transportation

● Opportunities for improving bicycle and pedestrian data should be

Recommendations on Usage, Trip, and User Characteristics:

● Evaluate and promote new bicycle- and pedestrian-counting technologies

● Develop a “handbook” or manual on basic pedestrian and bicycle char-

● Develop and widely disseminate sampling and other methodologies for

● Continue to develop and promote methodological improvements to

Recommendations on Preferences, Needs, and Attitudes:

● Synthesize and disseminate existing knowledge on preferences, needs, and

● Develop survey questions regarding conditions and preferences for bicy-

● Develop surveys and sampling methodologies that can be applied locally

● Assist in standardizing data formats and definitions of bicycle and pedes-

● Investigate new technologies for data collection, such as aerial photogra-

Recommendations on Crashes and Safety:

● Build consensus on characteristics that are most important to record in

● Investigate opportunities provided by GIS and global positioning systems

● Investigate methods to achieve more thorough reporting of injury crashes

● Investigate the potential of utilizing existing linked crash and medical

Recommendations on Secondary Data:

● Continue to improve the availability of existing research by summarizing

● Prioritize, fund, and promote research to fill in key gaps in knowledge

WHY COLLECT BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN DATA?

A perspective on the various uses of bicycle and pedestrian data is helpful in

Planning and Design

● Development and implementation of operational policies (e.g., traffic

USAGE, TRIP, AND USER CHARACTERISTICS

USAGE, TRIP, AND USER CHARACTERISTICS; PREFERENCES, NEEDS, AND ATTITUDES

Existing Data Sources

USAGE, TRIP, AND USER CHARACTERISTICS; PREFERENCES, NEEDS, AND ATTITUDES

CRASHES AND SAFETY

Existing Data Sources

Bicycle and Pedestrian Data

EXPENDITURES AND CAPITAL STOCKS

Existing Data Sources

The decennial census represents a nearly 100-percent enumeration of the U.S.

origin/destination areas. Various personal and household characteristics,

Metropolitan Household Travel Surveys

Household travel surveys are conducted in most larger metropolitan areas by

Nationwide Personal Travel Survey

The Nationwide Personal Travel Survey (NPTS) is a household travel survey